Nan Goldin’s Klara and Edda Belly Dancing photo seen here created a furor when Elton John’s numbered copy was seized from an art exhibit by British police.
Klara and Edda Belly Dancing Photo
The Klara and Edda belly-dancing Nan Goldin photo has been exhibited numerous times at major art shows without any controversy. The photo shown here has been blurred slightly to avoid all the Nan Goldin haters out there who claim the Klara and Edda picture is child porn.
Sorry, but it really is art. It may not be your idea of art, but Nan Goldin is a highly respected photographer and artist.
Numbered editions of the Klara and Edda belly-dancing by Nan Goldin print in a 30″ x 40″ size from Goldin’s The Devil’s Playground are highly sought after by collectors and sell for thousands of dollars at high-end auction houses like Sotheby’s.
So why the big fuss now about the innocent Klara and Edda belly dancing picture? It’s partly because Elton John is a gay celebrity and partly because certain people believe any photograph depicting any type of child nudity should be banned from public view.
Bottom line: The thought police nazis don’t like Nan Goldin’s work, so here’s a montage of some of her other controversial photos:
And by the way, you can get your own copy by purchasing Nan Goldin’s The Devil’s Playground (Phaidon, 2003). Of course, the haters and book burners may get there first, so you’d better hurry.
And that’s the real deal about the controversy surrounding Klara and Edda Belly Dancing.
No tag for this post.
September 26th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
PS - If you REALLY want to see the the full-sized, uncensored photo of Klara and Edda belly-dancing, then look here:
http://meggangould.net/blog/?p=173
I think she’s quite courageous for showing it, but there’s way too many haters out there these days to want to tangle with so many of them at once…
September 26th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
[...] Found here. [...]
September 26th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
That absolutely IS child pornography. You or I may be able to see something non-sexual in that, but there are way too many pedophiles in the world for it to be OK to exploit a child like this.
September 26th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
it looks like 2 girls having fun - its not very tasteful but it certainly isnt pornographic
September 26th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
that link doesnt work!
September 26th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
It is a truly sad state of mind that finds pornography in such childlike innocence - the controversy created in this culture by a publicly breastfeeding mom in this culture is bad enough.
Personally I find us to be a nation of utter hypocrits when it comes to images of the human body and perceived notions of sexuality.
Billboards of almost nude women (and sometimes men) in blatantly suggestive poses and slogans are fine for public roadside advertising. Horrific violent graphic rape scenes may be portrayed in movies and even on television….
but God forbid images of semiclothed or naked little children playing together, dancing or just enjoying a sprinkler outside and somebody has to jump in on the pornography wagon!
There is a sickness in people that view nudity in such a way and an even greater sickness in those that view children like that.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Pornography or not, I can’t agree it’s art. It looks like a polaroid snapshot in somebody’s kitchen.
I’ve seen better photos in many family albums.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
What I want to know is why this photographer is so “gifted”. That photo looks like one I would shoot, bad lighting and all. What’s artistic about it? And while I think that some of us can look at that and say “How cute” there are others who will jerk off to it. If you can jerk off to it…it’s probably porn.
And how does that little girl feel about her hooha displayed in public? I wonder if anyone asked her.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
[...] Enlaces: Fotografía perteneciente a Elton John forma parte de una investigación por pedofilia - Imagen [...]
September 26th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
If this is pornography, all central European Baroque churches with male puttos playing on altarpieces and displaying their genitals should be closed immediately.
Is this Anglo-Saxon puritanism of the American kind taking hold in the UK? Girls are having fun and, as many children, boys and girls, like to run around naked, so why is it pornographic to capture that moment on film? Moreover, the naked girl does not make eye-contact, does not entice the onlooker either.
One might not like it as a photo (I think it is a cheap snapshot of minor value), but banning it is stupid.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Exploitation (profiteering) off of a child’s innocence that may later be an embarressment to her. If there are haters, it is those who feel free to do so; not those who prefer to protect children.
September 26th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Yes it is child exploitaion … Sorry Elton, but you have lost touch with reality.
September 26th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Those girls may be having innocent fun, but the photographer knew EXACTLY what she was doing. It’s pornographic exploitation using the little girl’s genitals. Put clothes on the kids and the photographer would NOT take the picture. She took it exactly to shock and see if she would get away and finally someone caught up with it and now everyone’s whining. Too bad.
September 26th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
“there are way too many pedophiles in the world for it to be OK to exploit a child like this.”
1. Taking a picture of kids playing =/= exploiting kids
2. So if there were no pedophiles it would be perfectly fine to exploit kids?
3. Are you saying that this picture is pornography because some people find it erotic? Yeah OK. Some people find pictures of feet erotic but that doesn’t make it porn.
September 26th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
I think seeing anyone nude with genitals in full view people are going to feel uncomfortable, especially so if it’s a child. There are so many perverts and pedophiles in this society. Viewing the photo you can’t help but feel the vulnerability of the child, nude and uninhibited, innocently playing with their friend, completely unaware of the thoughts behind all eyes that are viewing them. They are unaware, I am not, thus the uneasiness.
September 26th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
This is absolutly disgusting. When I first heard about it I didn’t think it was that big of a deal. It is. A little girl laying spread eagle on the floor is not art. For one its unlady like for al ittle girl to be acting like this. Children shouldn’t feel this comfortable naked in front of a lady with a camera. I would punish my children if they acted this way.
September 26th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
I have to agree with some of the comments on here; this doesn’t look like art to me. I actually don’t see one artistic thing about it, but maybe I have no vision. As for pornography…I don’t really think it is, although I find it a little odd that Elton John would have a photo like this in his home. If I would have taken this photo and got the film developed I would have toss this one out as a bad picture…but what do I know?
September 27th, 2007 at 12:03 am
A person involved with sexual perversion owning pictures of naked small children…what’s the problem?
D’oh!
September 27th, 2007 at 12:04 am
Porn or not, the picture SUCKS. I’m a photographer myself and I’d be ashamed to have someone look at a picture of mine if it was as bad as this one. It’s a SNAPSHOT, with bad lighting.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:53 am
I haven’t made my mind up completely about the issues concerning this picture and its exhibition, but boy did I crack up when I read “it’s not ladylike for a little girl to sit like that” etc., and that Wendy would “punish” her children if they acted this way. Thanks Wendy for making my day. Also, I’m glad that you didn’t have any part in raising me.
September 27th, 2007 at 2:10 am
# 16 - I am glad you are not my mother - your attitude is worrying and unhealthy; I feel sorry for your children.
#18 - I assume you are referrring to Elton John; what sexual perversion is he involved with and, more interestingly, how do you know about it?
September 27th, 2007 at 2:34 am
If this is what makes an artist “respected” then those who define talent and taste are lacking in both.
It’s the sort of thing that most families have in their private photobook to embarrass their children with at their wedding, or some such.
It’s not art, but it’s not pornography either. Simply being in bad taste does not make it so. If that was the case, then chubby middle aged women nude sunbathing or elderly men in tiny swimming trunks would equally be so.
Doubtless Goldin’s mother told her she was talented, and somehow other people believed the lie.
September 27th, 2007 at 3:08 am
I don’t think most laymen truly understand art in itself. They just don’t “get” it. The problem being that there is a stark indication of nudity without giving it a second thought to what the artist is trying to depict in the scene. People are so conditioned to point fingers and call it perversion without realizing that there are a plethora of nudist pictures around which includes children. This photo has been around for quite some time, and yet no one had a problem with it until now.
That seems to indicate a bandwagon witch burning without ascertaining why this was accepted before but now it’s perverse?
The point is, if you see it as art then it’s purely art. If you see perversion then that’s a problem with your thinking, and you need to seek help.
It’s the proverbial “forbidden fruit” thinking this is perverted.. well it is.. because you think in perverse tones.
September 27th, 2007 at 3:46 am
Personally, I like the photo - it shows kids being spontaneous and having fun.
If the image/idea were created in clay, or as a drawing, I wonder if the reaction would be the same.
I suspect not.
I think the medium is part of the problem.
Yeah, its possible that some perv might get gratification from this image, but was it created for the purpose of sexual gratification? Heck no!
Maybe not your art, maybe not mine, but art (expression) nonetheless.
Heck - some people think Kenny Chesney is makin’ art!
Who’s to say?
September 27th, 2007 at 4:22 am
i think elton is a twat and he made better albums(well, only one actually) when he was bald and shagging kee kee dee.
He thinks he’s royalty and he’s not.He’s a knob.
by the way,love the weeve Reg.
September 27th, 2007 at 4:42 am
[...] defends child pornagrapher Here’s the link to the photograph so you can judge for yourselves: Klara and Edda Belly Dancing Plenty of bloggers have differences of opinion as well. And here’s what Elton John says about [...]
September 27th, 2007 at 5:38 am
Consider this:
Would the picture have been just as expressive of childish innocence etc, as they pretend to be belly dancers, if the picture had been taken from a position directly to the left or right of the children, rather than a direct money shot. It probably would have been. So why is it taken this way?
Because I am an “ARTIST” and artists these days often need to shock, rather than do anything artistic. (Which, by the way, this photo is not - it is a rotten photograph in many different ways)
And why does it shock?
Because I am a famous “artist” and I am “pretending” to create kiddy-porn.
But if it looks like kiddy-porn, then it IS kiddy-porn.
September 27th, 2007 at 5:41 am
[...] Source for photos [...]
September 27th, 2007 at 6:08 am
u think elton is a twat? me too
September 27th, 2007 at 6:14 am
Bould count, nice music but no taste!
September 27th, 2007 at 6:21 am
Elton suck big dicks!!!!
September 27th, 2007 at 6:32 am
Well Phil Schmidt, photographer… You seem to know what you are talking about. Guess that’s why you are much wider know than Miss Goldin and you’re beautifully lighted prints sell for a lot more money than hers does!
Moron!
September 27th, 2007 at 7:08 am
I don’t see any pornography stuff, only 2 girls naked, but not sex is there. The nudity is a normal thing.
September 27th, 2007 at 7:50 am
I’d be pissed off if this was taken of me when I was a child and sent out for the whole world to see. Even if she was asked if it was ok to publish this picture, she is way too young to make a decision like that. All involved should be ashamed.
September 27th, 2007 at 8:03 am
To pull down photographs or paintings fearing that someone might think sordid thoughts about them even though a majority don’t is nothing short of knee jerk crazy.
Some sicko thinking the unthinkable about them hardly causes harm to anyone, only disgust. As for it tempting them to cause a physical crime against children then I’m afraid that was always likely to happen. The answer? Look after your kids, know where they are.
There are plenty of other sick things going on in this world lets not let them spoil it for the rest of us or we’ll end up behind bars with the wack jobs enjoying the rest of the world.
September 27th, 2007 at 8:04 am
If you make your judgements on the photographer’s reputation, then you might call it art. But if you judge the photo on it’s own merits, it ain’t. Too bad the blogger is fixated on Goldin’s reputation and is letting his bias through. It isn’t art, and that’s that.
September 27th, 2007 at 8:50 am
Put them both in jail ASAP!!! Just because he’s Sir Elton John doesnt mean S**t. Poor kids, in 10 years are they really going to say “wow that’s art, my private parts showing for the whole entire world to see, geez thanks everyone” BULL SH*T I use to like E. J. but he’s nothing but a nasty gross pervert, bastard!! Poor babies! Artist my A** DIRTY NASTY BITC* WHO’S NEEDS TO BE SMACKED, HARD!! OVER AND OVER AGAIN!!!
September 27th, 2007 at 8:53 am
I find the picture a real turn on - thanks for posting it.
September 27th, 2007 at 8:56 am
Well my opinion all lays in why someone is looking at it. I can tell you a person isn’t looking FOR this photo to look at the girls playing. A person would be looking FOR this photo (aside of for this artical to decide for yourselves if it’s porn or not) is to look a the sexuality of it. I don’t know anyone aside of for sexual reason somone would enjoy looking right at someones vagina. Child or not child. So it’s Child Porn. Do you think this little girl at 7 or 8 or older is going to be happy to see this view of her do you think she will offened because she’s playing or your seeing her bottom?
September 27th, 2007 at 9:20 am
I don’t think bad of EJ… But, on the other hand, I’m not seeing much of an artistic element here… I’m not a professional photographer by any means, but I don’t see anything noteworthy of the composition or lighting. I have seen a few photos in my time that could warrant a debate from both sides, but this one doesn’t get much of a vote from me… The girl dancing I have less of a problem with than the girl on the floor. Oh well… I just hope they are innocent for the sake of the little girls involved…
September 27th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Plain and simple this is wrong. Open minded, closed minded, it doen’t matter. It is wrong.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Well it is art because the published photographer who is an artist says it’s art. It’s also art because it made all the people above think and care enough about what they thought to post on here. Would I allow it to be shown, yes, and if it was my daughter? well no so it tells me something about myself, again, thats art by definition.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Ok this is clearly not child pornography but it surely isn’t something that should be shared with the world. it should be kept in a special place at the girls home and given to her when she is an adult and then she should decided what should be done with it.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
[...] can see it here: Klara and Edda Belly Dancing I’ll label it NSFW just in case. __________________ Lily "I hate this girl. I hate her [...]
September 27th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Well. I actually liked the photo. I still don’t know if it was necessary to show the little girl naked. I believe it is more shocking that way, and it makes people to struggle against their own minds. Some people may feel it is wrong to look directly at the little girl’s vagina, but no one would resist to do it. The intention of showing her like that it’s a bit morbose.
No one can’t refuse a real fact. The 41 persons that have posted before me, came here after hearing about the existence of the photograph. Call it whatever you like, but the photo is getting attention, and many people are trying to get a look at it.
Personally, I don’t see the picture as pornography. But I do think is shocking. It makes you think how bad things would came out of something that may be innocent.
(excuse me if I misspell, English is not my mother lenguage)
September 27th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
What I want to know is why this photographer is so “gifted”. That photo looks like one I would shoot, bad lighting and all. What’s artistic about it?
What does “art” mean, anyway? If someone wants to own it for aesthetic, rather than sentimental, reasons? I see no reason why something can’t be both artistic and pornographic (and my personal opinion is that this picture is neither, but that’s not very relevant).
And while I think that some of us can look at that and say “How cute” there are others who will jerk off to it. If you can jerk off to it…it’s probably porn.
Would you like a list of the things that teenage boys can jerk off to? Any photo of a moderately attractive woman? Any item of women’s underclothing? All porn?
And how does that little girl feel about her hooha displayed in public? I wonder if anyone asked her.
I’m not sure I can take anyone seriously when they use the word “hooha” to describe a part of the body. But if you did ask her, she probably wouldn’t care. Small children don’t have body issues. My kids happily run around the garden with no clothes on. Beaches are full of little children running around with no clothes on. Family photo albums are full of photos of naked children at the beach, naked children in the bath, naked children everywhere.
Now, she might care in 10 years time, or she might not. (I’d say it’s about 50/50). Her parents made the call that they were happy with it. End of story.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Don’t worry it’s Art !!!
September 27th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Photographing nakedness of any age group is not a crime and should not be considered so. If brutality, beastiality or wickedness is in there - ban and prosecute. Otherwise nakedness in itself is an absolute joy, especially where we have such an innocent playful scene like this. Whatever your pursuasion, isn’t this what God, and/or nature intended? I certainly think so. How on Earth can a naked vagina or penis cause offence? The few politically correct out there are controlling and destroying us all. Grow up!
September 27th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Firstly I feel that people are attracting too much attention to this photograph , effectively what the they have done is fall into the trap set by Nan Goldin to bring this picture to the attention of millions of people some of whom possibly would find it sexually gratifying, having seen the picture in question. And I do feel you have to view to make a point of view,
(I hasten to add that I would not view the contents of a child porn site)
the title is very misleading as I believe the dance in question is called limbo dancing.
I personally find it sickening that Nan Goldin would want to take this picture in the first place and to use it as a means of revenue is grotesque this is no treasured masterpiece it is a simple poor quality snapshot of two children in the act of play.
I am not sure what the relationship is between Nan, Klara and Edda but there is obviously a trust there, maybe they are family not that that justifies it in anyway, and as the children are not of an age to make a decision as to the future consequences of allowing it’s publication then it is “exploitation of children” and should be dealt with accordingly, there must have been many more shots that were taken that epitomize the children at play, the artists decision to use that particular shot was born, I am sure out of a desire to attract attention to her amateurish and mundane photographic talent and raise revenue.
Shame on the artist , shame on the governments that have have failed to act, shame on the galleries that allow it to be displayed, shame on Sir Elton John for wanting to own this in the first place, the sad thing is that it is now being circulated around the world wide web and it will always be there, can you imagine the stigma that has been attached to the poor girls through a wanton act of publicity seeking.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
lol…this ain’t art just a cheap picture that could be found in every family-picture-book…i hate people seeing art in every fu**** s***
September 27th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Hey Edinbud I hope the police come knocking at your door to check out your computer and the contents of it’s memory, your comment may be in jest it may be serious but it is sick you weird fuck.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
hms (#13) is correct.
Art, speech, etc. are limited by and subject to law, which exists to protect people and maintain order. Criminal law reasonably protects children from horrible abuse in part by banning child pornography. Crystal clear exposure of a six-or-so year old girl’s gaping vagina in a photo is child pornography that is dangerous to children generally, rightly criminal, and disgusting.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Amanda Says:
September 27th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
I have seen the uncensored pic and this lil girls vagina is so cute. its such an amazing photo and yes, it makes me want to lick her baby puss, but there is nothing wrong with that, we all should be able to.
REPORTED
September 27th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
the comment left by amanda just goes to show how sick and perverted some people actually are, you disgust me and should be hauled infront of the authorities . as the photo itself what on earth where the parents of these children thinking when they allowed there young ones to be exploited in this way , these are not everyday family snaps, nor are they art . why was it nessasary to take the photo with the chiild naked ? i think its the artist who needs to be investigated asap
September 27th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
What about the Nirvana album cover with the naked boy on it? No one says that is child porn.
September 27th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Amanda’s comment has been removed…
September 27th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
[...] being accused of owning - child pornography. One of the photographs John lent was titled “Klara and Edda Belly-Dancing,” and depicts two young girls, one laying on the ground naked with her legs spread apart, the [...]
September 27th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
[...] being accused of owning - child pornography. One of the photographs John lent was titled “Klara and Edda Belly-Dancing,” and depicts two young girls, one laying on the ground naked with her legs spread apart, the [...]
September 27th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
If you’re a perv, you’ll see something sexual in this picture and call it porn. If you’re not, you won’t.
September 27th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
[...] being accused of owning - child pornography. One of the photographs John lent was titled “Klara and Edda Belly-Dancing,” and depicts two young girls, one laying on the ground naked with her legs spread apart, the [...]
September 27th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Pornographic? Perhaps not. Children like to play naked.
In bad taste? Absolutely. Like someone above said, if it were truly in the interest of art and not of…something else, then it would be off at an angle, not “straight on the money shot.”
Art? Absolutely NOT. I’m not a professional art critic, but I do have an idea. There is nothing in that snapshot, for a SNAPSHOT is all that is, that constitutes as art, except maybe the theme of innocent children at play. I’ve seen nude child paintings and even photos that I would classify as art. But that picture looks like nothing more than something a mother, not thinking of the wierdos out there who could see it, just snapped as a keepsake.
As for the people saying that just because some people could use it as porn doesnt mean it is, think about it like this: Would you have a problem with it if it were your 7 year old daughter that a 40-year-old-man was yanking his filthy dick to?
September 27th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
I am as “liberal” leaning as the next person and I certainly don’t like what the Bush administration and the right wing conservatives have been turning America into, but this photo certainly has no place in the public domain. Children should NEVER have their naked bodies exposed by an adult to the general public under ANY circumstances. They have RIGHTS as individuals and their privacy over their own bodies should be protected PERIOD.
September 27th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
It’s an awfully shot picture, which I suspect is the intention. It gives the image a grimy and dirty feel particularly as the kitchen looks nasty and cheap.
Now, put two children in there, one of whom is completely naked. The nudity is then offset by the dirty cheapness of he surroundings. Voila, we have a seediness and undertone of paedophilia.
Utterly intentional and very very cheap.
Horrible.
September 27th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
To all the perverts and prudes-
First of all most of you don’t realize that ‘art’ is subjective.
On that note a turd in a cup could be considered ‘art’ by some and offensive by others. Such is the animal.
In the case of this mediocre composition, I believe that the ‘artist’ has accomplished her goal: It made you react.
Simple as that.
Nonsensical, blathering moralists leave your ignorant, egocentric views at the ticket counter, please.
September 27th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
i agree it looks wrong it may be art but it is very graphic and in this day an age its not tolorated but its sad what the worlds come to that perverts get priority
September 27th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
This really isn’t an appropriate photo for an exhibit; It’s just not artistic.
September 27th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Its a rubbish photo. Looks like a four year old took it. Sally Mann she ain’t
September 27th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
This is not child pornography.
It is two children playing.
The problem is that, as adults, we see something sexual and that’s where the arguments start.
Art is supposed to provoke and stimulate the mind and conversation, which this does.
September 27th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
leave it to a fag to say that kiddie porn is art, shootem all and let god sort them out. what was the queen thinking knighting a fag. stupid old bat
September 27th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Yikes! This is art? I studied photography 20 years ago and took better and more interesting amateur photos than this. I don’t know if this rises to the level of child porn but it is a lousy photo either way. The child standing up is wearing stuff that looks like it belongs in the dumpster. And the child on the floor will be horrifed when she gets older to find a photo of her naked is hanging in someone’s home and circulating on the internet. What the heck were their parents thinking? They need to be locked up for letting this happen along with the idiot who took the photo. This photo is embarassing for both the children for being photographed in this manner. And the idiot who thinks this is quality photography.
September 27th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Who wrote that diatribe above? Its pretty childish to accuse those who don’t like the photo of being ‘hater’s’. I’ve never heard of the photographer but having seen this pic, I don’t think she’s much chop. I also completely believe that child has been exploited.
September 27th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
And No. 64, you’d do well to leave your patronising arrogance at the door also. Thanking you
September 27th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
If this is art, then I am worth a fortune!!
I have thousands of out of focus, crappy photos of my two daughters playing happily together, sometimes without their tops or bottoms on. But would I publish them on the net…no way.
As for Sir Elton..lay off!!
he collects this “so-called” photographer’s “so-called” art and he is giving it away!! To suggest anything more is ludicrous.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
The lighting is awful, the girls are not centered in the picture and the background is heavily scewd. Actually, this picture breaks all the rules of a “good” photograph. So what’s “artistic” about it? It’s provocative. Very provocative. As far as I’m aware, “provocation” is not synonymous to “art.”
September 28th, 2007 at 12:16 am
Who is the mother of these children? Whether it is art, porn, or magic is not the question. Did these children have a choice? Are they even old enough to choose? That is what makes it expoitive.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:28 am
I do not think that it is true that a snapshot cannot be art. What about the snapshot of the kiss that Alfred Eisenstaedt took of a GI returning home from WW2?
As for this particular picture, I think it honestly is hovering on the line. If this picture was taken by the average Joe, and he hung it up on his wall, would you really call it art? I think most people would consider it exploitive and child pornography. If you found a print of the Mona Lisa at the average Joe’s house, then there would be no question.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:31 am
[...] you go, Voodoo: Klara and Edda Belly Dancing Twitchy found it. I tried really hard not to be offended by the picture, but it’s bad. Really [...]
September 28th, 2007 at 3:38 am
Oh how ridiculous and what a double standard.
If this were a little boy, people would say, “Oh, look at his little wee wee!”. It’s a photo of two young girls playing, the matter that one is naked shouldn’t matter.
September 28th, 2007 at 4:36 am
I think this photo is beautiful. It does a great job of depicting the innocence of two children who are comfortable with their bodies. I think that kind of innocence is beautiful. As for those who say so assertively that this is not art, I think you should expand your idea of what constitutes art. Art is not about “good” lighting or better costumes–it’s about how well the work conveys its emotional or intellectual content. I would say the strong response that this photograph has elicited should be a clue as to its success. I also do not think that Nan Goldin took this photo to shock people but rather in spite of that fact–and that takes guts.
September 28th, 2007 at 5:06 am
The censors have made an innocent depiction of childhood obscene by doctoring the picture. The human body is a totality and not obscene per se.
Mike Freeman.
September 28th, 2007 at 5:38 am
Well, let see, so many battles over a picture…
- is it child porn… idk. i mean porn is really sexual acts and that isnt. should we go to all the marble statues and start choping off penors and breast cause they are sexual organs?
- do i have to fight my mom in court to get back all my pics of myself in the bathtub when i was 1 or 2, cause she used to get a kick out of showing all my gf’s those pics?
- do i count those pics as art… no. but then again, who can say what art is? is that a cop out, not really. did the artist have bad taste, yea in my opine its distasteful. will i buy the art or book or whatever it is, no.
- should we start burning all the Keats, Goya, Modigliani and the thousand of other painters who made nudes?
see people, the media and the govt make you look over here at issues that dont really should make you upset. if that was a pic of you and your sister when you were kids and your mom took it, would you be pissed off? would it be child porn then? pay attention to bigger issues. be upset at this, fine… but dont let it take center stage in your life when so many other things need to be.
September 28th, 2007 at 7:04 am
This is not art to me, it is child pornography clear and simple. It is also a very amateurish photograph. Exploiting children, even when the parents agree to it is simply immoral. It will be a sad testimony to a decadent society if this trash is ruled ‘art’ and not porn. I cannot help but be very disappointed in EJ, I had higher respect for him before this that is for sure. Why would any ‘decent’ person support trash like this photograph? It simply cannot be justified by calling it Art.
September 28th, 2007 at 7:24 am
Hrm. Funny that it took them a little more than a year to report the photograph as Child Pornography. A little funnier that they decided to report it RIGHT before a major gallery presentation. Hm. Maybe….Just maybe….It’s because people are too prudish to understand what Ms. Goldin was going for?
Personally, I don’t know. I’m not here to bash anyone.
And as far as you calling Sir Elton John a t*at? Have you ever met the man? He’s probably a very intelligent, nice person. But you’ll never know now that you’ve publicly bashed him on an internet blog. Freak.
If it really is pornography, then it’s pornography and the photographer should be prosecuted accordingly. Elton doesn’t fully own the photograph anymore. It was in partial ownership to the gallery. And now? Now the police own it. So are they going to be prosecuted for owning “child pornography”? No. They’re the cops. Why would they be?
Personally? I want to hear what the photographer has to say about the photo. Why did she take the picture in that specific position? Why use children? Why not adult women?
She’d probably say that the girl on her back had just gotten a bath and was running around the house as the other girl was jumping around. Children DO that sort of thing. Me? I’m neither offended nor appalled. I am indifferent. But I’m pretty sure that’s what the photographer would say. If I’m wrong, then I’m wrong and it is porn. Who knows other than the artist?
September 28th, 2007 at 7:41 am
Also, I find it flipping HILARIOUS that because of this ONE LITTLE THING…Everyone suddenly hates Elton John? Are you going to stop listening to his music, now? Are you going to switch the radio station when they play one of his songs? Are you going to not buy the album? What about when Pete Townsend from The Who was nabbed for Child Pornography? Did you stop listening to The Who? Stop buying their albums? Stop watching their music videos or their biography? No. So shut the bloody hell up and quit complaining. If it really IS meant to be child porn, then shame on Elton. Slap him on the wrist and send him on his way because you know that that’s EXACTLY what will happen. They will slap him on his wrist, say Shame On You, and tell him to never do it again. MAYBE charge him a small fine.
And number 69? For your homophobic views you should be punched in the face. I find your comments offensive. I have homosexual friends and a lesbian sister. You need to learn tact. You need to have a public dialogue. Your private dialogue can be as filthy and offensive as you like. But keep it private.
We’ve all fallen prey to this. This was the photographer’s intent. To make us all jump at a discussion about the photograph.
September 28th, 2007 at 7:50 am
#27 - Bagga
If you don’t do anything artistic then you’re not an artist! If you set out to shock then you are probably a shocker!
It’s about time you lot got your heads from up your collective backsides, stop wallowing in your own sel-importance and rejoin the real world!
September 28th, 2007 at 8:51 am
No, it’s not child pornography.
No, homosexuals are not ‘turned on’ by female nudity- of any age.
Yes, it is exploitation: it exploits a child’s natural comfort with their own body, and it takes away something that is not the photographers to take: the right of the person to control public access to something that in our culture is widely accepted to be private: our un-dressed selves.
The fact that the child is not embarrassed is not really relevant: of course children are comfortable naked- they have to be taught that their naked body is a private thing. What is relevant (as others have observed) is that she may very well be unhappy at some points of her life that that picture is out there. Aside from the fact that it is on the internet, Elton John’s is ONE of a number of signed copies: there are more out there hanging on walls around the world.
September 28th, 2007 at 9:32 am
The one and only question is: Why the hell do you think its less offensive or pornographic just because you hit “spray” a single time in paint?
you are doing the real censorship: you decide WHAT PART is offensive.
Discuss the whole picture or dont show it. This way of cencorship is lamer than seizing it.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:02 am
I feel that the photo is in poor taste but with that being said…
I still feel that all of you are influenced by the puritan values that have been perpetuated in the United States. In Europe, the human body is not seen as evil. Many group events have some form of nudity.
For example, just look at the freedom of the French mediterranean. If you tried to wear, or not wear, the attire that is customary to those beaches. A citation would be issued at the very least.
In Amsterdam, Public restrooms are located on corners. I don’t mean spot a pots. I mean free standing urinals. Prostitution is legal and the girls stand in windows nearly naked, allowing anyone to see them wearing next to nothing. It is accepted there as part of nature.
Throughout the old world, communal bathing takes place in fountains or rivers. With a fair number of participants opting not to wear clothing.
I’ve seen that they just don’t have the body guilt that is prevalent in the American culture. These girls were from Berlin and they’ll probably grow up knowing that the pictures had been taken of them. They’ll, more than likely, think of it as nothing more than a chance to be photographed by an inspiring artist.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:06 am
As a mother of a little girl of about the same age, I am aghast that this is considered art. There is no way I would allow my daughter to be paraded like that. Its the thought of the paedo’s viewing it. ‘Amanda’ comment just confirms it.
And why , for the purpose of this, blur the picture anyway - What does that tell you?!
I agree with Megan & Sue. Its a crap picture anyway.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:57 am
If someone considered an artist, came over to my house and asked if they could take pictures of my children belly dancing in the kitchen and this what turned out. I would have lost my mind. I don’t know if I would consider it child pornography, but it’s in bad taste. I would consider myself a very open minded person. I can’t even find it within myself to see the art here. Being a photographer, it is a terrible shot. If the children were fully clothed, it would still be a bad shot. It’s very uncomfortable to even look at. I don’t believe shock value and child exploitation should be used in the same context. I keep thinking how would this child feel about seeing this picture when she is older. I don’t think any blame should be pointed at Elton John, if he was straight no one would care. The correlation between Elton being gay and two female children playing is absurd.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
[...] Posted by Chilly Willy Here you go, Voodoo: Klara and Edda Belly Dancing Twitchy found it. I tried really hard not to be offended by the picture, but it’s bad. It’s a [...]
September 28th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
elton is a world wide star respected throughout the world for entertaining us with fantastic songs for years this picture has and will change many peoples views on him elton you have stepped over the line with this one its not rite to display such material the way the world is today its deemed toatly unacceptable and compleetly wrong
September 28th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
i don’t think this picture is art, i think it is nasty and if someone else did this they would be in jail for child porn, just because he is gay doesn’t mean anything, its nasty and it pisses me off
September 28th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
As a connoisseur of pornography I can assure all the outraged souls here that this is not it.[/sarcasm]
As to how this photo happened, it’s my strong guess that it was impromptu and not specially posed - the photographer just happened on a pair of kids dancing around half-dressed/nude, as kids do when they are still “innocent”. The art is in the humanity of the moment captured - focusing on the genital area is what is cheap and sick. Uhh, that’s what pedophiles do!
The cheap shots here about the grimy kitchen and the poor dress…Ô_õ… many people live in such conditions without guilt or shame — granite top wet islands don’t appeal or matter to them — and the outfit worn by the standing girl is obviously an attempt at a real belly dancing costume: the semi-transparent gauzy material pants with a split leg.
As for Elton John, fer chrissakes this is one photo in one of many collections he owns - it’s not like he sits drooling over this one pic every day, though I’m sure that the Northumbria Police are having forensics check it for semen stains as we umm, speak. The British police just love an opportunity for a fit-up job on a celebrity; if he’s “bent”, all the better!
There is nothing prurient here unless you yourself choose to make it so. Any pedos among you: it’s much too expensive compared to the usual fare - you cannot afford to buy anyway so… move along please.
September 29th, 2007 at 12:31 am
To a pedophile, this is pornography, so, besides being a photo that looks like a chimp took it, it turns on some of the sickest, and depraved in our midst.
Why make it easy for them to get off?
September 29th, 2007 at 3:49 am
This photographer is scum and Elton is slime.
September 29th, 2007 at 6:15 am
Enfermedad de unos pocos(pederastas),sintomas de muchos(hipocresia).
September 29th, 2007 at 8:59 am
I own a copy of the Devil’s Playground book. I hesitate to even mention that fact due to the bizarro overreactionary climate in the US regarding this topic.
It’s fun to see the varied reactions here and elsewhere. Is it art? Is it child pornography?
YES, it’s art. It’s art because it captures a fleeting moment of innocence. So what if it looks like a Polaroid. Art isn’t always about the visual perfection of an image. Sometimes it’s about the subject matter and the viewer’s reaction.
Is it child pornography? No. It’s pretty obvious that it wasn’t posed or staged or designed to titillate. If you think that all naked children are pornographic, perhaps the problem is in YOUR mind. Perhaps you’re disgusted because you’re aroused.
I’m sick of overreaction and “catering to pedophiles” in this country. Men have to tiptoe around girls for fear of being considered pedophiles. Fathers are questioned when photographing their own children at school events. At some point this has got to stop. Nudity is not pornography.
September 29th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Art or no art, I just have to ask myself how that little girl will feel when she gets older and realizes that her parents allowed that picture of her to be displayed around the world.
If I was her I’d be pretty upset, wouldn’t you? I’m a mom and I would never, in my wildest dreams, allow that photo to be displayed publicly. That’s the kind of picture that a thirteen year old would find in a family album and say ” Oh my God, Mom, how GROSS!!”. How is she going to feel
when she realizes it’s in a book for everyone to see - and her name is in the title. She’s not just a subject, she’s a human being. What’s wrong with some parents? Perhaps the residuals make it all worth while
September 29th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
#88 speaks of public beaches, urinals and prostitutes in Amsterdam. The context is different; these are adults who realize they have a choice and an audience. These little girls have been victimized in the worst way; by a predatory photographer and public that has the arrogance to believe they have the right view this little girl’s private parts.
I think there is something sinister about the mind (of the photographer) who hopes to gain fame by taking advantage of a situation that is obviously controversial and titillating. That seems to be her genre. Making up for lack of talent, I guess.
And I am fascinated by all the high-minded talk about whether this is art or pornography. Obviously, we all have the right to privacy. The girls are simply too young to know the ramifications of having this photo as part of the public domain.
Some Native Americans didn’t wish to have themselves photographed because they feared their souls would be stolen in the process. In some way, I feel this has been done to these little girls. The photographer is preying on their innocence.
I am feeling that the people who would have you believe that it is puritanical thinking to oppose this photo are like “Pres.” Bush saying it is unpatriotic to oppose the war in Iraq.
September 29th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Well spoken, MslLark!!!
September 29th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
I certainly wouldn’t want my daughter to pose like that. It is child porn - and just because rich people would pay a lot of money for it doesn’t mean it is right.
Rich people in privileged positions also abuse children - and they get away with it.
The stupid photographer who calls herself an artist should be locked up.
September 30th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Anyone who can call that crap above art, obviously has their head so far up their own @$$, I am surprised they can still breath.
Seriously people, this Nan Goldin has no artistic or photographic talent that I can see at all. My 5yr old can capture better images.
I am disgusted in myself for even waisting my time commenting on this shit.
September 30th, 2007 at 10:54 am
this is awful, why anyone would say its art i really dont know, it makes me feel physically ill, i have 2 young kids, and am constantly on my guard, if i see an adult who is a stranger to even just saying hello to them i wonder what their motive is, i know it sounds extreme, but i just want to keep them safe, there are so many paedophiles out there, who should be in jail but are roaming free,i think elton john is a complete **** for having a picture this grotesque, and the ‘artist’ should be put away
September 30th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
I can only imagine how this child feels now! I’ll take a would guess and say exploited?
September 30th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
I can only imagine how this child feels now! I’ll take a wild guess and say exploited?
September 30th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Elton John–charges of pornography, peadophilia… do I hear Michael Jackson? Whatever the questionable nature of the photograph, police or whoever decided to alert attention to this should have realized that the real harm would come in publicizing a thing that was otherwise relatively obscure. What were they thinking when they decided to call the police on this? “Poor little girls, how I feel for them. So, I’ll call the police, create a public scandal and let the whole world have a go at the picture.” Would it have been so hard for the museum officials to say, “we prefer not to display this piece” and return it to the collector. End of story.
September 30th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
#107/bdauphin - You may have a point - at least it makes sense *BUT* the the museum was only guilty of naivety… and the real fault here, in the creation of a frenzy, lies with the British Police media machine and their relationship with the sensationalist elements of the press who live in the intellectual sewer… a truly vile collaboration. The next logical step here would be a “raid” on EJ’s art-room and confiscation of thousands of art-works so they can decide if they feel titillated by them and thus require prosecution. Maybe they’ll even find some of Picasso’s more esoteric pieces and they can drag him down into their filthy cesspool.
For all those who want hide their dirty minds and their feigned indignation behind “the kids”, with any luck and one might presume it to be so judging by their nationality, the two children here will have been brought up in an environment somewhere above trailer-park mentality and to believe that the human body, including their own, is a beautiful thing and has nothing innately ugly or dirty about it.
September 30th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
[...] can look, almost, for yourself. A blog post at a strange website includes a censored version of the photograph in question. Debbie Nathan also [...]
October 1st, 2007 at 12:41 am
Anyone who thinks this is porn needs to have a good look at themselves, there is nothing sexual about the image at all. If you see something sexual in it then I would seek help.
It’s art, the fact this image is being discussed here and in many other places on the net only reinforces that fact.
Nan Goldin is a well respected artist and knows what she is doing with the medium.
Perhaps it is a “snapshot” that anyone could have taken but anyone who uses that as an excuse to put down the image has a very narrow and simple understanding of what photography is and it’s role in society.
Just because you could take a “better” shot than this doesn’t make you a “better” photographer, in fact it makes you a poor photographer from having a complete lack of understanding of the power of a photograph, the strength of the content and it’s context.
For those “photographers” insisting they can take “better” images than the one in question, explain to me why we are not discussing yours if your images are so “great”.
It’s not because of some gallery conspiracy, it’s because you don’t understand photography. Try reading some photography history and then maybe you’ll get it, and before some smart ass insists that art should stand on it’s own without having to resort to knowing art history, what do you think has been happening in the art world in the last one hundred years and more.
October 1st, 2007 at 5:22 am
Right…. to be honest it doesn’t strike my fancy, I love photography but to be fair, me personally, I would not buy that photo but… that is a matter of taste, and we all have a different one.
I don’t think it should be considered pornography at all and to be fair, Sir Elton John is a well known gay man so I’m pretty sure he’s not looking at that photo THAT way
To Megan who wrote “If you can jerk off to it…it’s probably porn.” yes I would assume that maybe for sick and disgusting people like paedophiles and such they might find it appealing but to be fair some people jerk of at the sight of a woman fully dressed, does that mean women shouldn’t be allowed to leave the house at all???? Or is it maybe just the photos??? Should we stop photographing women???
Regarding the child exploitation, again… WHAT?? Unless they were cruelly MADE to belly dance for that photo to be taken then….. No…..
Im starting to think that that freedom thing that everyone talks about is very quickly fading away these days…..
Oh wait wait, what about Anne Geddes??? You know, that photographer that takes photos of babies in animal costumes and naked on top of flowers and whatnots… is that pornography?? Is that exploitation??? to be honest I wouldn’t buy that either as again it is not my kind of photography but I know plenty of people who seem to think that they are “ever so cute” for Christ sake you even have stationary with photos of naked babies by Anne Geddes, or is it just because its babies and babies are just cute… im sure that unfortunately in this world there are people who are sick enough to jerk of at the sight of a naked baby as well (taking into consideration certain stories you hear on the news)
So the real question is… actually, there’s no real question here… this is just a bunch of BS and people should just leave Sir Elton John alone, like I said, I don’t like the photo but… that’s up to each ones taste and I do think that paedophilia is something very serious and it should be persecuted as much as possible but let not make a witch hunt of something that is not!!
But that’s just my opinion…..
October 1st, 2007 at 6:26 am
Strange old world. If I had pictures like that on my computer I would be arrested and charged with child pornography. So to all those paedophiles out there, just quote ‘It’s Art’, and you’ll be exempt from any prosecution! Best you all start attending art classes quickly!
I’m assuming that the naked young girl is aware of this ‘art’ and given full consent to have images published around the world showing the genitalia of her (can a minor give consent to such images?). I for one would be quite upset as an adult, knowing that pictures of myself as a child fully naked had been distributed worldwide. Of course, once such images are out there, they can never be recalled.
Let’s forget paedophilia for the moment, and concentrate on the rights of the young girl in question who was too young at the time to even contemplate the ramifications of such ‘art’. This young girl has to live with this for the rest of her life (assuming she knows).
And if she doesn’t know, does that make it even worse?
p.s. Can I have naked pictures of your children? (it’s art after all…..)
October 1st, 2007 at 6:42 am
p.s. Not sure how this picture can be called ‘art’, unless it’s supposed to be provoking. I which case I have a copy of ‘Hustler’ - very provoking.
I think the picture if crap - it’s not even good … and degrading. The publishers, photographers and owner should all be deeply ashamed of themselves (they know who they are).
October 1st, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Many thoughts come to mind about this photograph. The first is that if I had taken it I would have scrapped it as being of poor quality.
I would be afraid to collect it from the processors as the average person would be arrested for taking it in the first place.
The person who wrote that the photographer wouldn’t have taken the picture in the first place if she had been fully clothed is absolutely correct. There is nothing appealing about the picture, unless you like looking at little girls’ vaginas,
Finally, if this is what people call “art” then I am glad that I only consider myself to be an amateur photographer.
October 1st, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Another thought has just occurred too me! If those of you who think that this picture is ok were to be photographed without your consent whilst using a changing room or a toilet, and the picture made publicly available, would you say it is art or not?
October 1st, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Having found the un-blurred picture elsewhere, if anything I think your blurring has made the picture more erotic. By blurring it, you have suggested there is something to be hidden, something forbidden which shouldn’t be shown. The white dots over the girl’s vagina only draw attention — without them, I find the focus of the picture to be the standing girl, probably her hair/face, but on your altered photo the dots are the focus (they are the brightest part of the photo).
I’m not an artist, but I would expect the art to be the whole exhibition, not just one photo. The series of photos is exhibited as a slide show, taking one out of context isn’t what the artist intended.
October 1st, 2007 at 6:59 pm
By the way, the advert on your site (at the top) is currently telling me to visit ‘mrskinandplayboy.com’. If anyone needs reminding of what is porn, I suggest they click it.
October 1st, 2007 at 8:53 pm
okay, if you want to claim that this is a piece of art at least make it a good photo. bad lighting, HORRIBLE CAMERA! looks like it was taken in the 80’s with a disposable. there is no statement and definitely no photographic talent here. this is a piece of trash picture AND definitely could be child pornography. if an everyday person took this pic they’d be arrested, but since the person calls themselves a “photographer” then its art? nope, sorry laws apply to everyone!!!
October 1st, 2007 at 9:40 pm
I think Suzen way up the list came close but didn’t exactly express it - A “normal” person would see this photo and say, “okay” and then go on to something else. A person attracted to pornography would return - for reasons most of use would not like to contemplate. I’d have to vote porn.
The quality of the photo is a totally different issue. As a very accomplished photographer (at least in my own mind :)), it sucks. It’s a snapshot, IMO.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Yeah, all the pollyannas here that see porn need to go see a frickin’ shrink and deal with their own problems. Nudity does not equal sexuality. Just because you think it does, does not make it so. There are lots of nudes in the world of art that aren’t in the least bit sexual or erotic (think tiny peepees on sculpture throughout the ages, for one example).
It seems to me this is an attack specifically BECAUSE Elton John is gay. You put gay, naked and children anywhere near each other and — apparently — the fundies get their undies in a twist. I can almost see them all fanning themselves and saying, “ooh, I declare…” faint from the raw sexuality of a naked child playing.
It also seems to me, art neophytes, that the photo might have been taken from that angle precisely because of the juxtaposition of innocence and YOUR dirty thoughts. But what any piece of art means is up to each person to decide, and maybe I’m reading the current stupidity into the photo’s context.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:11 pm
One other thing… I find it hard to believe that most people don’t have photos of themselves as a child that are just as embarrassing. It’s certainly a movie cliche of someone’s parent showing their significant other naked photos from childhood. What’s next? Calling pictures of children playing in the bath pornography? Anyone that thinks so is projecting their own sickness onto the world.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:12 pm
“# Shayla Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
That absolutely IS child pornography. You or I may be able to see something non-sexual in that, but there are way too many pedophiles in the world for it to be OK to exploit a child like this.”
With ideas like this, everything ever presented my anyone should be destroyed immediately, as someone, somewhere will find some sexual gratification in it, whether it be a container of piss (with or without a crucifix), a toilet (because some people get of on the excrement of others) and a million of other things. This is obviously a picture of kids, in their pre-adult innocence having fun. Art? Sure, ok. Great art? IMO, hardly. Pornography? Not in the slightest…unless the above poster has thoughts that need to be curtailed and SHE is the one who can’t control herself. And even then, why should the artist be censored because the viewer can’t control her urges. That is the same reasoning that gives the Taliban, et al, the right to demand women cover their whole body…because the weak males can’t control themselves. And yet its the womans fault.
Yeah, right. THAT makes sense.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Shitty picture. This question comes to mind: Is there a really a difference between an Art Snob and a Jerkoff? I think probably not… it’s artifical gratification either way.
Maybe the Nan would like to take a picture of my hairy asshole and title it “Sunrise for Art Snobs”
October 1st, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Get a date wasted on roofies and takes pics of her genitals, then pass it off as art. If it’s not consenting (and little girls are incapable of consenting), then you’ve exploited. Even if done ‘artfully.’ This is an ethics slam dunk. Sorry, Elton, but still love your music.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:51 pm
This photo looks like it was taken by an amateur with a throw-away camera merely for exploiting a child’s genitilia for personal profit. In other words, child pornography! The fact that it has been shown all over the world and many prints sold without any incident is beside the point and a sad indictment of the people that have viewed this photo and have aided in the exploitation of these children. Elton John shame on you!!
October 1st, 2007 at 10:59 pm
this is WRONG
October 1st, 2007 at 11:05 pm
This is child pornography. Period. What is a grown homosexual man doing with a photo of this nature?
This is child pornography under the guise of art. I hope Elton John along with Nan Goldin are charged with crimes against innocent children. They are both disgusting.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:28 am
That is porn. I work with nasty flipping pervs and I KNOW that is porn. It tries to sell as art because of shock value.
I am not thought police but I AM A MOM and would sure be ticked off to see a pic like that of MY kids!
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:35 am
This is a picture that belongs in a family photo album. There is somthing very disturbing about an adult, regardless of sexual orientation, buying a photo of this nature. It is digusting and wrong that people buy this stuff, and that people sell this stuff. Shame on those who do either.
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:47 am
Let’s apply the ultimate test: What would God say?
God would look upon the scene exhibited in the picture and say, “I created this. It is good.”
Who are we to say otherwise?
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:34 am
For all of you saying “in ten years” you may want to look at when the photo was taken. It WAS 10 years ago or close to it. The print that Elton had was a numbered copy dated 1998 if I remember correctly. This little girl is by now 16-18 years old and is perfectly capable of expressing her opinion in the matter if she so chose.
That said it is a poorly taken pic in my opinion but can still be viewed as art even if not very tasteful. It shows children at play plain and simple. It is not pornographic in any way.
If people want to ban all materials that could turn someone on or be found offensive by someone else it will be easier to blind every person in the world because it is all around us. You have to look no further than the kmart ad to see pics of people and often even children in nothing but underwear.
If you desire for Elton to be charged than you might also want to consider that the PRINT he had was one of 150 numbered prints. If you want to press charges against him then you better start tracking down every single owner of those other 149 prints as well. Better also add everyone that has ever bought the book that this photo also appears in.
I find it amazing how thick-headed people can be. This controversy only proves that the idiots are breeding.
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:44 am
The question is, was this a candid moment the photographer shot, or carefully set up? If it’s the former, you could say it’s an innocent moment for two kids; if it’s carefully staged, then why would the photographer stage it like that? I would say it’s in bad tasted and exploitive if she had to pose them like that. As for whether it should be allowed or not, why not ask the two whose opinions should matter most: the two girls in the photo? Especially the naked one. Shouldn’t they get a voice in whether it’s “ok” or to display it or not, since it’s their bodies on view? Silly me: kids don’t get a voice, do they……
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:50 am
The question is, was this a candid moment the photographer shot, or carefully set up? If it’s the former, you could say it’s an innocent moment for two kids; if it’s carefully staged, then why would the photographer stage it like that? I would say it’s in bad taste and exploitive if she had to pose them like that. As for whether it should be allowed or not, why not ask the two whose opinions should matter most: the two girls in the photo? Especially the naked one. Shouldn’t they get a voice in whether it’s “ok” or to display it or not, since it’s their bodies on view? Silly me: kids don’t get a voice, do they……
October 2nd, 2007 at 4:06 am
The imagery of this picture is disturbing to say the least.
THe picture suggests domination with one child standing over the other in a reclined position.
The angle the photo was taken at was designed to stretch the child’s pubic area.
The content is sexualized and to the Art fraternity that analyse every minute part of art to death this is obvious.
I think at best it is a big “up yours” to percieved art plebs
brisey
October 2nd, 2007 at 4:36 am
Hmm child ‘porn’ has become the new ‘witches’ where everyone is suspected when no crime is evident! Nakedness need not be sexual - evil truly is in the eye of the beholder maybe? I think the practice of cutting the end off a boy’s penis (circumcision) is a far greater example of child abuse, but if ‘God’ demands it, those air-heads comply! If you want to see children’s genitalia, then visit a local church, and ogle the cherubs!
October 2nd, 2007 at 4:55 am
Looks like an old snapshot found in a shoe box by the police tucked in the back of a some pedophile’s closet.
October 2nd, 2007 at 4:58 am
By no stretch of any imagination can that be called ‘art’. It is such a poor example of photography that I can’t see how anyone could call the person who took the picture a professional ‘photographer’.
Asthetically it’s garbage and technique wise it’s garbage …
GARBAGE.
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:58 am
Art? HAHAHAHA!
Elton, the so called “Sir”? Well me & my colleagues are waiting for him.
The queen who gave this fag the title? For her, too.
Vote for republik, people! It’s high time.
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:35 am
The behaviour of the girls may well be, and probably is, completely innocent. But photographing it and publishing it for all the world to see is not wise. Frankly I find many of the photos in this collection tasteless. Opening the door to the pedophiles who will view these photos is in a word - stupid.
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:36 am
Bravo beggs909!
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:37 am
I have a photo that my Mom took of me dancing in shallow water in the bathtub when I was 4. It’s a nice black and white and shows my private parts clearly. I suppose that makes my Mom an “artist” as well.
I don’t follow this “artist,” but after seeing this, I see no need to. Capturing the innocence of children can certainly be accomplished with their clothes on, and Im my humble opinion, the “shock” value of this photo makes it distasteful.
October 2nd, 2007 at 7:01 am
I wouldn’t go so far as to say the photo is pornography but I would say it is too much. Whatever the photographer was trying to represent he definitely went over a boundary!
October 2nd, 2007 at 8:56 am
I noticed many people tried to leave a link to the un-censored version of the pic. All such links were eliminated. What does that mean?
October 2nd, 2007 at 8:56 am
I have to agree somewhat with the mother in 16. Not the “punish” part, but my daughter knew by the age of these girls, that we keep our privates covered up when we are around other people - that areas which would be covered by a bathing suit were “off limits” to others.
I find it very troublesome that the parents of these girls have not taught them that by this age. Maybe the artist’s intent is to make people worry for the safety of these little girls, but I hardly think that is an artist’s job.
In the meantime, I think the artist has exploited these kids, and that makes her a bit of a predator, eh? Or is it OK since she is a woman?
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:06 am
I think the picture is far from being pornography.
But as a work of art it doesn’t impress me at all. It just looks like a primitive snapshot taken with a bad polaroid camera of children playing in the kitchen.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:38 am
Sure, there’s nothing wrong with nudity in most cases, even non-sexual child nudity. I’ll agree with most folks that this is not a picture of a sexual ACT. However, just look at the damn picture. A straight on shot looking at a small girl’s vagina with her legs slightly spread…. If you can look at that picture and say that there is no way that could be interpreted as being sexual or slightly pornographic, then you are just being naive.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:43 am
There seems to be a lot of people who fail to understand what photography can be, what it can mean, the power it can have. Rather than looking at their own reaction to this image, the whole debate raging about this photograph as an example of that power, they call it “crap” and miss the point entirely.
Here’s another “crap” snapshot for you that your five year old could have taken. It’s a technically poor snapshot, looks like it was taken on a cheap point and shoot with no thought to composition, colour or lighting.
http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/lm25.html
Pretty powerful photograph despite the poor quality.
Now do you get it ?
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:51 am
The streets must be awash with perverts and sickos in England, I’m suprised any of you let your kids out of the house. Quick, lock them up in the cellar before all those perverts see them and become even more perverted.
Get a grip people.
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:33 am
The only reason this picture is published because it shows the child’s genitals, If this sexual exploitation of young children is not pornography, what is?
All those of you who do not think this is pornography, would you like to be that child? Would you sell your child to make a few bucks and let her picture be taken? Would you be proud if that was your sister or mother? Would you gladly show this picture to your children or parents?
If so, you certainly should be examing your conscience or lack of.
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:49 am
The girls seem to be playing and having fun, but the photographer knew exactly the turmoil the photo would cause. I feel it’s not art (but that is my opinion). Having the child on the floor completely nude makes no sense…seems to be that way only for shock value. Sad to have an adult take a photo like this and mar playful innocence.
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:54 am
- I assume you are referrring to Elton John; what sexual perversion is he involved with
If you’re a half-way intelligent person, which you seem to be, think about it for a while and it’ll come to you.
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:04 am
Hey! Those are Britney Spears kids!
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:37 am
This is not child pornography. If it were child pornography, then most families’ baby books would contain some form criminal material. I would however, bet everything that by now someone, somewhere has knocked one off whilst looking at it.
For me, this photo is not interesting or clever or visually stunning or any of those things that make me really respect and appreciate a piece of art. Nonethelass, as every photograph is a piece of art, this is art.
The child on the floor is all but anonymous. No one will recognise her as the ‘the naked girl from the photo’ when she is older, or even today. Presumably the parents and photographer have placed this image in the public domain in the hope that others will see the same beauty in it that they do but also, as adults, they will know that some may find the image uncomfortable, offensive or sexual. Does this mean the that the children are being exploited? i.e. Are they being taken advantage of, are they being ‘used’ or misused?
It’s not really childhood-friendly to explain to a little girl why someone may find her naked body offensive or sexual however, without understanding this, the girls couldn’t make an informed decision as to whether they’d allow the picture to be be made available to all. As such, I think the girls have been robbed of their rights. Given the contentious nature of the photo, the owners should have waited until the girls were old enough to understand all the ways in which the image could be viewed before the girls themselves decided whether or not to release it.
All our parents took embarassing naked photos of us as children. If an artist saw one of you, and saw such beauty in it that they felt compelled to exhibit it, would you allow it? How would you feel?
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:09 pm
I am amused that some think it’s not art because it’s “not even a good picture.”
lol
You would do better to examine what is your definition of art and what you believe is the purpose of art.
Then check back with us.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Just discovered this discussion today and spent half an hour reading the replies.
It is really funny to see how the human brain, although so similar among different individuals, can lead to so antithetic results.
Unfortunately most of them are driven by either ignorance (in the real sense: i.e. ignore something) or hysteria (have a prejudice, despite any evidence against it).
Most people have still in their mind a confusion between “art” and technical or aesthetic value of an image. Someone claiming to be an “expert” of photography arguments about the poor technical quality, someone else, on the basis of a photography course attended 20 years ago, claims to be a better photographer. All details not related at all with the ability of a photographer to reflect or embed into an image a symbolic value left to the viewer to interpret, which is a basic brick of creativity and thus, of art.
The major confusion point comes around the definition of child porn, or, more appropriately, sexual exploitation of children. About this I noticed really funny positions. Someone thinks that, as the image could rise insane desire in a paedophile, this means that is of course child porn. But these “ill” subjects might be excited as well by kids on the beach wearing just swimsuits. So what ? Should the parents of the kids on the beach be convicted for organising child-porn shows to delight the paedophiles ? Or even more: what if a paedophile is excited by the simple vision of a “fully dressed” little girl, just with a mini-skirt ? Should we consider the fashion magazines for children the new frontier of child porn ? Of course it makes no sense thinking that something is “porn” as far as someone is aroused by its vision. For instance, I could be a special “pervert” excited by the vision of high-speed trains: do you want to classify the new French TVG as a high-tech pornographic tool ?
We must be very careful, people: the enlargement of the concept of child-porn doesn’t come without consequences. I read too many times of fathers reported to the authorities (and arrested), just because an ignorant and stupid assistant in a photo-lab thought that the family-album images of the depicted kids were “pornographic” and called the police. At that point the events undergo a breakdown which cannot be stopped by any wise mind: the police is afraid to be (potentially) accused not to have “acted”, even if they think that the images were not pornographic. The judge will behave in the same way, and so on. And this could happen to you, before or after. No matter if you take not-nude images of your kids, just wait and then the threshold above which an image is considered as child-porn will include also your images.
I am quite pessimistic: it is difficult today to find someone with a sufficient number of neurons in the brain to understand that an image where the kids are smiling, jumping, playing and enjoying their life cannot be considered “sexual exploitation of children”, no matter how many clothes have on and no matter the angle formed by their legs, no matter also the unknown intention was in the mind of the photographer when the image was taken. “Sexual exploitation” is a really serious matter and has to do with real things and not with debates about the sex of angels. All the resources have to be focussed against it. Given that the amount of resource of police is limited, if we waste them in busting innocent people taking innocent images of their kids playing on the beach, in the garden or at home, there will be very little resources left for the real fight against the real exploitation.
In a word: what do you prefer ? To put in jail 1000 fathers taking family-album images of their kids or a single criminal who really exploits children for sexual purposes ?
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Nan goldin is famous for bringing the snapshot aesthetic into fine art. the idea is that all those bad quality snapshots everyone has in their albums IS actually art…trust me, one day all of those crappy photos will have a nostalgic quality that will make themmmm fine….art.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:59 pm
I love people who catagorize everything and anything under the title of “art”. Cover a cow with green paint, shoot it in head while wearing a chicken outfit and listening to Bon Jovi, and call it art…common now.
While I do not think that the intention of this image at the time of conception was child pornography, it has certainly rocketed to the top of the chart with all the publicity it has recieved. I understand that the photographer is a well known person and this was a risky push to get a statement across, or attention, or something.
That being said, there are probably hundreds of naked little children filling the pages of photo albums across the world - and they are not considered pornography. The problem with this is that it is being displayed to the public - and it got negative attention.
Additionally, I don’t think that “it was done for the sake of art” will stand up in court - I am not sure that that was written in the child pornography laws.
October 2nd, 2007 at 2:04 pm
This is not child pornography (though it may be to any peds looking at it, but we can’t be the thought police).
Many parents have cute naked pictures of their kids, but let’s face it, taking a picture at that angle is extremely inappropriate!
October 2nd, 2007 at 2:20 pm
why are we arguing whether this is ART or not, really if anyone finds artistic value in something then it is art. This is art, but it isn’t anything special, my 4yr old has taken better photos. This is shock value. This is controversy, in that sense it is art. There is little aesthetic value, it doesn’t capture anything special…except the childs labia…is this really valuable expression? What does it convey that we can’t readily find in any homes box of photos. There was a time when it took guts to take such a photo, back when we were a more modest society, that’s when it was art, when it was rare. This isn’t porn, but it isn’t worth more than the paper it was printed on either IMHO.
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Wow, these comments are really eye-opening.
First of all, the photogragh should not have been censored here - it is deeply wrong to have done so. This censorship plays right into the hands of the “haters,” as the poster calls them, and reinforces the view that there is somehow something wrong with the photo.
Secondly, it is not surprising but nevertheless always discouraging for me to read how sadly ignorant people are about art. For some reason, many people continue to cling to the 19th century notion that art is pretty pictures that anyone would “like,” whereas we have over a century of art history in the wake of that notion that ought to have buried that simplistic understanding long ago. Art today is found in an extraordinary breadth of forms and many of them exist to challenge our assumptions, not merely reassure us that all is well. It is especially upsetting to read the posts by photographers complaining about the “bad lighting.” C’mon, people! Give me a fucking break. It’s not puppies at sunset, to be sure. Grow up.
Thirdly, perhaps the saddest aspect of these comments are from the women writing in to insist that this picture is child pornography because of the view of a little girl’s “hoo-hah.” I would suggest that pornography is very much in the eye of the beholder, but I don’t think these writers are pedophiles. Instead, I think that, tragically, their view of the female body, including their own bodies, has been hopelessly warped by our popular culture. Do you believe that your own vaginas are dirty, scary, disgusting, evil? Does behaving in a “lady-like” manner mean developing a healthy sense of self-loathing and shame about your own body? My god, I hope not - but many of your comments seem to suggest that this.
Finally, many of the reactions here seem a part of the dangerous wave of hysteria of the past decade over child porn and molestation. To be sure, real exploitation or abuse of children is utterly reprehensible - but that is not what is going on here in this photograph. I say this hysteria is dangerous because it causes otherwise rational people to be completely unable to make important distinctions - such as that between the criminal violence of child porn and abuse and the important, constitutionally-protected provocations of art.
October 2nd, 2007 at 4:29 pm
That is child pornography, there is no art in that crappy photo, it should be burned. The problem is society does not see it as innocent…we see it as sexual. Children photographed in situations like this causes great discomfort to most…and sick arousal in others. Therefore because of the later, it should be distroyed.
October 2nd, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Art? No way. If this is art, I guess I’m a genius.
Pornography? Maybe not - depends on your level of pervertion.
“Children like to play naked”? Are you sure?
October 2nd, 2007 at 7:20 pm
To me it’s perfectly innocent viewing as I see my children like this almost every day. However, I wouldn’t be at all happy if this was a picture of my kids in public view, some things are best left to family albums.
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:11 am
I enjoyed this photo yes it is erotic the gilrs are very sexy, in Japan we are able to look freely upon images like this, and more detailed. You western people seem funny to us, for making such a big deal, that a child might be looked at. Peoople have eyes, use them, understand and soak in the world around you. Nothing is morally wrong about the photo, at least here, in fact photos such as this (and as i said more) are freely produced bought and sold in many prefectures of japan.
October 3rd, 2007 at 6:01 am
I do not understand Americans´and Muslims´ hostile attitude towards nudity.
The more religious, the more they dislike god´s creation of us!
What is pornographic with this picture? I see nothing. There is no sex content here, not even a hint in that direction.
Only in America and the Middle East is it so hard to distinguish between sex and rape. Only in America and the Middle east is nudity banned. Only in American and the Middle east must babies cry in hunger because their mothers cannot breast feed their babies in public. Only in America and the Middle East is nudity equal to sex and, sex equal to sin.
October 3rd, 2007 at 6:35 am
These children are too young to give consent for these photos to be taken and displayed publicly. Who lets a photographer take photos of their children playing naked? Wouldn’t you tell them to put clothes on when people visit? Looks like child neglect. The photographer is famous for nude sexual photos of adults and it seems as if this was staged. Who has such odd clothes for their kids to put on? The fact that the children were put in this position not of age of consent makes it pedophilia. The parents should be arrested for allowing a sexual photographer in their home to photograph their children this way. Drop the you have the dirty mind, BS come on I never had my kids play naked it is not normal, we as a society need to protect our children for being publicly displayed in such ways. What about these children when they grow up how will this mentally scar them. The name too of the collection, Thanksgiving, the only one that would give thanks for this the lack of these children’s right’s and dignity are peoples giving thanks that they can exploit children and call it art and nobody stops them.
October 3rd, 2007 at 6:55 am
Art or no art. Porn or not. The picture is both uninteresting and crappy. Those thinking of this as (in any sense good or interesting) art should review the fairy tale “The emperors new clothes”.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:11 am
I’m an actor, storyteller & writer and in the past I was a semi-professional photographer/journalist.
I live in the North East of England, not far from Newcastle. When I heard about this photo and the controversy surrounding it I was in two minds about whether I should try and find a copy of the photo to look at to see what the fuss was about before I could make ‘my own mind up’ whether I thought it was pornographic or art. Well a search on Google took me here.
Now having seen it (even the censored version) I am of the opinion that to call it ‘art’ is laughable and an insult.
In my opinion the children look