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.
Tags: controversy, kalara and edda belly dancing, klara and edda, nan goldin
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 as if they are innocently playing, as all children do, and are hopefully oblivious to their nudity/semi-nudity, (even though they may have been staged for the photo) – by the way I am the father of a 19 year old daughter – I think this woman knew exactly what she was doing when she chose that angle to take the photo. If it had been taken from the side it would probably not have been so controversial and I truly believe she knew that.
I sort of partly agree with *43 “…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.”
I find the reasons the photo to have been taken questionable.
A lot has been said about Elton John owning this photo. He’s gay not a paedophile, the two do not go hand in hand – he likes men not little girls – saying that I do wonder why he wants to own this particular photo – a ‘business/tax investment’ probably, well poor choice Elton.
However I believe the woman that took the photo is a lesbian. Now I have concerns about this photo from that point of view.
Aside from the subject: the picture quality itself is awful – lighting – what looks like a hint of flare on the left side.
I agree with Comment *7 “…It looks like a polaroid snapshot in somebody’s kitchen”
Art it certainly isn’t.
One more point: Why on earth would the children’s parents have agreed to letting their children be photographed in this way? I know if it had mine kids I would have been disgusted. I agree whole heartedly with comment * 34 “…All involved should be ashamed…”
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:11 pm
161: quoting from Sahr
“That is child pornography, there is no art in that crappy photo, it should be burned.”
You decided both things about “art” and “pornography” ?
It is pointless the matter about “art”. It could be not “art” in the sense that people gave to that term 300 years ago, but what matters most is that only a sick eyes could view it as “child porn”.
But the suspect is that people make a great confusion among the terms: “pornographic”, “erotic”, “suggestive”, “indecent”, and so on.
Did you look at the image ? Or not ?
Look better: are kids playing and smiling. Or do you see something else ? My kids often play naked on the beach … so … what ? Do you want me and my wife to be convicted for organising kid-porno shows in public ?
Do you really know the meaning of the term “pornographic” ? It comes from the Greek ???????????, which might be translated as “drawing or picture of prostitutes”.
So, take this as a starting point when you *think* you know what is pornography and what is not. Either there is something directly recalling the sexual intercourse or you are abusing the term “pornography”. You might use more appropriately “indecent”, “lascivious”, “erotic”, but not “pornographic”.
If you extend this term too much, then everything becomes pornographic and, at that point, you miss to distinguish between who really exploits kids for sexual purposes and who takes innocent images of children playing and smiling. If you put both on the same plane, then all the efforts and resources of the police will be steered toward the plethora of the latter category and there will be no chance to bust the real criminals, belonging to the former category.
In short, be careful in enlarging too much the sense of the term “child-pornography”, as most people here is doing. In an ultimate analysis, when too much attention is steered toward these innocent, family-album images, there will be an increasing probability for the real criminals to stay out of the spotlights and hide themselves better and better.
So, do you think you are really helping those children who, in this very moment, are sexually abused by someone ?
In my humble opinion I would have preferred by far that the time and resources spent by the police to tackle this innocent image would have been spent, more effectively, to bust someone sexually abusing a child.
——————
“The problem is society does not see it as innocent…we see it as sexual.”
Sorry, but *you* see it as sexual, and this might indicate that you have a problem. A big one, though.
—————
“Children photographed in situations like this causes great discomfort to most…and sick arousal in others.”
Try considering that children photographed in situations like this caused great discomfort in *you* and, most important, do not extend your feelings thinking that everyone else must experience the same thing you feel.
—————
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:00 pm
What sick person allows their kids to lay on the dirty kitchen floor, completely naked, and spreading wide their legs in front of someone with a camera?
It is not suggestive, nor indecent. It is full frontal display of a child’s genitals, with them being clearly unaware and doubtfully consent.
I don’t think the children have been abused; and yes, if you take a second glance, and see them smile, you can see the artful side, the captured moment of joy and innocence; but for God’s sake, get them dressed!!
It might not be pornography but is utterly disgusting;
And if that was the whole point, try shooting a close-up of diarrhoea next time, I’m sure the whole world will be touched!
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:22 pm
There seems to be a lot of art experts here who state that the picture is not art.
Ok, fine, perhaps then they would like to elaborate on exactly what art is.
October 3rd, 2007 at 7:31 pm
To 171: phototext
The problem is that they think that “art” is what they “like” and “pornography” is what “excites” them.
It is a matter of misused words and definitions, but the problem is that when you fail in recognising, in the worst case an artist will be unable to communicate trough its work, but when you confuse child-porn with innocent family-album images, the consequence is that someone will be thrown in jail and its life destroyed.
And this is not a negligible difference.
October 4th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Honi soit qui mal y pense.
October 8th, 2007 at 4:33 am
This is not ‘porn’ as such, but a blatant disregard for the childs personal privacy and welfare, she may be blissfully unaware at the moment but she will grow up and will in all probabillity be deeply embarrased by this pic.
Recently my 6yr old daughter was rolling around on the floor in her nighty when I took her pic, unfortunately just as I took the pic, up came her legs, I showed her the pic and said “do you want your ‘bits’ in the pic or shall we take another with your ‘bits’ all tucked away” her reply was “can we take another cos’ I don’t want everyone seeing my bits” We deleted that pic and took another which she was very pleased with.
When making a pic of this content public there is absolutely no thought or consideration for the childs feelings at all….and that is fundamentally wrong!!!!
October 17th, 2007 at 2:43 am
My problem with this is… as it looks very innocent… why would you want a picture like this. Art, maybe? However, it is suspect as to why someone would WANT this photograph if it isn’t their children in the photograph.
October 17th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Europea Says:
October 3rd, 2007 at 6:01 am
I do not understand Americans´and Muslims´ hostile attitude towards nudity.
Last I heard British police, Saatchi Gallery, and the Baltic Centre are all in Britain, not the US or Middle East.
This is all a bunch of hoopla over nothing, do we have to have a repeat of the Mapplethorpe Cincinnati trial in the UK also? To take one picture out of context and make a big deal about it is ridiculous. Take the body of work/show as a whole. There are people that will be offended by anything put up on the wall and there will probably be people turned on by almost anything you put up also.
October 19th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
The replies on this forum show how sexually repessed many people are. Those who see such a picture as sexual must find it sexual arousing and then feel guilty. Anger then motivates their negative observations. If one found the picture asexual then they could not consider it pornographic. I say again “Honi soit qui mal y pense” which is a curse.
Mike Freeman
October 26th, 2007 at 6:48 am
I personally can not see any art in this picture, but in my mind it is not pornographic. I feel that the world has gone paedophile crazy. I was looking thru an old family album, and there were pictures of me and my sister nude when young. We were playing games, having baths etc. If you were to deem this picture to be pornographic, then some of my family’s snaps are pornographic (!).
Unfortunately, we have a very distorted view on what is right now. I thing society needs to take a step back and have a good think.
October 26th, 2007 at 6:58 am
Today, the CPS decided the image was not indecent.
I don’t see why the image generated so much hysteria. I don’t consider it in the slightest pornographic but at the same time… I can not ever consider it art. I consider photography an art form, I also believe that a photograph should undergo the same process of composition as would be applied to a painting. This is not a photograph, it’s a snap. A family record. Inoffensive to the world as a picture but an insult to many art forms. It could be art but it would involve some dramatic editing.
Think on this, if you submitted an image of such a poor quality to a magazine for publication, irrespective of content, do you honestly think they would fail to comment on the skewed camera angle, the shadow from the flash gun or the frankly domestic functionality of the ill lit background?
I agree that the right to display this image should be defended on a matter of subject but I’m horrified that it claims the right to be displayed as art.
October 26th, 2007 at 7:08 am
The image in question can be both child porn and art, and impressive art to boot. Then there is the question ‘does the fact that it’s art make the pornographic element acceptable?’ and to me the answer is yes. Just like violence or sex in a movie acceptable if it is crucial to the story.
Some people will undoubtedly be aroused by the image, but you just can’t stop that. People get aroused by the oddest things, it’s just an add thing about humans. Art should be allowed to address this oddity and if we say it can’t then we are all in denial.
October 26th, 2007 at 7:08 am
Porn or not?
I only know that I have seen porn in magazines and have not felt as I did when I looked at this picture.
I feel really uncomfortable and can imagine certain people really getting off on this.
It shouldn’t be published and if you or I had taken the film to Boots to be developed, they would have called the Police.
It’s because it’s a child.
October 26th, 2007 at 7:59 am
I see two childen playing, unaware of the photographer. The children themselves, at least to the viewer, seem unselfconcious and confident.
I do not see the photograph itself, however, as art. As one person already mentioned, it looks just like a poorly taken snapshot of their kids playing in the kitchen. It isn’t very good quality, although I haven’t seen the original and it may be that the actual photograph is of better quality.
I do think the photo exploits the innocence of the children here, I have to say. They are not able to voice their own opinion and if they are, then a parent or guardian can override their objections if they wished to. The children may later object to these photographs taken of them during innocent play and published for all the world to see.
I see nothing wrong in parents taking photographs of their children playing in their paddling pool in the garden naked, or in the bath etc., as a reminder for them and their families of that wonderfully, innocent time but the post of the little one laying in the floor in such a pose is surely exploitative in my opinion and will be used as such by people with an unhealthy sexual attitude towards vulnerable children such as these.
The photographer may feel it is necessary to photograph controversial and sexual images but it is one thing to photograph a consentual adult and a whole other thing to photograph a child.
The photo to me is tasteless. It isn’t pornographic to my eyes but to many others, it will be.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:01 am
anything that causes sexual thought is considered pornographic, there are people that get turned on by the strangest of things due to mental health problems, are we to ban black plastic bags because someone found one sexually arousing?
The difference between art and porn is simple.
If you can’t masturbate to it, it’s art
October 26th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Its not a question of whether of not it is porn, the question is how it is perceived. Viewed by a pedophile makes it porn. Viewed by anyone else, it is just a badly executed photo.
Art is not just about pretty pictures to hang on your wall. It is there for us to generate opinion, discuss and question all sorts of things. In this respect Nan Golding has succeeded in creating “Art” but it is not worthy of gallery space.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:44 am
For those of you that claim this is art, what changes would be necessary to change this photograph from art to pornography? What would you consider to be child porn?
October 26th, 2007 at 11:52 am
[...] Take a look at the pic (link goes to censored version) and make your own mind up, but one thing strikes me from the get-go – Nan Goldin is no artist, just a rip-off merchant selling crap to people with too much money. At best it’s a nasty snap of a naked little girl, at worst it’s atrocious photography that you wouldn’t admit to if you’d taken it yourself. [...]
October 26th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
resepected as a great artist by who? 99.999% of the people on this planet don’t know who this person is and don’t give a f!! Art, pushing a button on a camera is art? great, I’m an artist!
October 26th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
As an artist I think as a peice of work it isn’t exactly Adams or even Maplethorpe. It may be art to some yet I’ll give it a pass.
Porn? I think it depends on the viewer. If your mind is in the gutter or your a perv your going to see porn.
But it is just this controversy that is lending to it’s credibility.
Maybe the rest of the collection stands out as art , this I think is weak.
an immature photograph taken as art . Folk art ? very possible. Then most of us have lots of ‘Folk art’ sitting in photo albums.
October 26th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
You don’t think there’s someone out there jerking off with the image of mona lisa in their heads?
Personally, I don’t think that photo is porn. But it sure isn’t art, it just looks like a crap photo. I’ve taken better pics with my camera phone. Maybe I need to see it framed, maybe that’s the issue
October 26th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
That is totally inappropriate! How more wrong could anyone be??? Throughly indecent!!!!!
October 26th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
It’s not great photography in that it’s no different from any other mother’s picture in the bad lighting, cheap film, poor composition, etc. And I suppose it is art in that it gets people talking, but then so does kiddie porn, just ask that Stiles guy whose video got ‘found in the desert’.
I get the innocence of children and the fact that they are blissfully unaware of their own nudity, but that also could have been accomplished by the topless girl and the nipple shot, without the gynecological view of the other girl. Two naked girls dancing, upright, or kids splashing in the bath, both are far less grotesque ways to accomplish the same thing.
Maybe I do see it in a perverse way, but that’s because as a mother, I know how it would feel if my daughter’s vagina were on public display. There is no reason, art or no art, for a child’s vagina to be on the internet, on a museum wall, or in an art gallery. Yes the word is vulgar and crotch or groin would sound better, but the fact is it’s a little girl’s vagina, a part that has to be deliberately aimed at to be photographed. It’s not a little boy angel statue where you can’t avoid it, it’s an internal kind of thing. How many pictures has this photographer taken of the inside of toddlers’ nostrils, since internal tunnel-shots are so artistic?
October 26th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Nudity is not porn. I don’t care what the age of the person is, as long as they are not posing specifically for the purpose of sexual enticement, IT IS NOT PORN. You cannot let the thoughts of others drive your definitions of words. A picture of a horse is not porn if a person happens to get turned on by pictures of horses. Porn is defined by the intent of the SUBJECT. Even is a man takes pictured of clothed kids at a playground for other men who get off on those pictures, it is STILL NOT PORN.
>>And how does that little girl feel about her hooha displayed in public? I wonder if anyone asked her.
Oh don’t worry. Just like any innocent child, as soon as society gets to her, she’ll feel bad about it. Stupid society…
October 26th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
I don’t like it. I thought it was very tasteless and it made me feel very uncomfortable
October 26th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
OMG, I am the mother of 2, a nine year old boy and a 7 year old girl. I would never let this be published. I no way believe in censorship , but this crosses a line. It may not be intended for kiddie porn but i will be seen that way by many. Now I have snapped a shot of my kids “bare butts” all parents have. This may have been innoocent also, kids haing fun after a bath or the pool all parents have those “goffy” ictures of their kids, But if I would have taken a picture of my kids being silly after a bath and saw that it caught a “pose” showing their private areas in such a personal way it would have been deleted right away, no questions. Naked pictures of innocent fun are for the baby book, for them to laugh at someday, maybe show their spouse the cute baby tush oneday. This picture violated that little girl on so many levels and I am sure she had no say in it. Where is the parents of this girl? Is it the photographer? If not why would any parent let some woman take naked pictures of their child?And then let them be published? Money I am sure and that is selling your child. So wrong. Plus look at this ladies other “art” they may be of adults, but it is still sexual in nature. (seems to be a pattern) At least they are adults, if an adult wants to have graphic pictures taken, fine with me it is their body , their choice but this child has no choice. Shame on you Elton and shame on anyone who looks at this and “gets off”. And major shame on the parents. That poor child i am scared for her with parents like that.
October 26th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
This is disgusting and it outrages me that such a picture could be sold. Fair enough it may be considered artistic – if they blurred out certain elements then it could potentially be apprercicated by art lovers but at the same time would stop Pedo’s for gaining any pleasure!
October 26th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Shame on the parents that would let this out on the web…I’d like to slap them off the planet…It was disgusting…. These little girls will not be happy there private world was just broadcast over the world….Terrible
October 26th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Considering Mr John’s sexual preferences and the fact thet he has no children. This together with the life style of the regular, hip art gallery attendee who most probably also is too self involved to have any children makes me question the motives for owning and viewing this kind of picture and calling it art. It’s along the lines of exhibiting a piece of shit at the Louvre… If art is to evoke an emotional response where do we stop? Snuff pictures could be high art in a couple of years if I consider the comments posted by some of the progressive numbskulls….
October 26th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Its not pornographic. No wonder this country is so messed up. I’ve seen family pictures of myself and my brother in the bathtub, on the toilet, rolling in the mud, etc. Who gives a rats ass if a pedo sees them? Does the jeweler takes watches out of the window when hes open so thieves won’t steal them?
Americans have a serious problem with human sexuality and defining it. Oh, sure its OK to show murder and mayhem and bodies and gore during primetime TV, but when it comes to the actual human condition like sexuality, its better to tittalate and tease for ratings. There will always be pedos, but you egg them on when you tittalate and tease them. If your’re seeing something sexual in this picture or pictures like them, you need some serious mental help.
October 26th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
One naked female child has her back arched all the way back, and her legs are spread open showing a full frontal view of her vagina. Her body is arched underneath an older female child wearing little more than underpants as the younger child looks up at the older child’s crotch. Ick – when you write out the description of the picture it sounds unseemly to me! However I don’t think it’s “porn” in the criminal sense but “porn-like” since it would entice a pedephile. I don’t think there’s any question about that.
It is one thing to be a great photographer who’s subject matter happens to be at times controversial – such as Oliviero Toscani or Robert Maplethorpe. It’s another thing to be a talentless person who can only make a name for themselves by shooting controversial subject matter – such as Nan Goldin. Her pictures are very amatuerish, with poor composition and lighting. She’s a poser.
To have this picture on display as part of any “famous” exhibition is completely ridiculous.
There are so many great photographers with incredible, emotionally charged, alive (or even dead) imagery that make you think. I just don’t think Nan Goldin is in their range. In her early work with the Boston trannies there were a few (very few) good pics that came out of the time frame but that has more to do with what the subjects gave to Nan.
October 26th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
This is obviously lesbian child pornography.
* The photographer, Nan Goldin, is a lesbian known for her homo-erotic pornography (“art”). Thus the “she’s a woman photographer” argument, made by those who wish to deny the obvious perversity of what is staring them in their eyes, just does not cut it.
* The title of the “work” has to do with “belly dancing” which has a clear association with sexuality and in particular prostitution.
* The title of the book in which it was published is the “Devil’s playground”, which beyond the reference to Satan (and evil) has connotations of sado-masochism (and look at the way the standing girl is dressed).
* The supine girl, totally naked, has her legs spread, her vagina boldly facing the camera, and is staring at (and reaching her hands up toward) the vagina of the girl standing spread-eagled above her.
* The standing girl, while she has panties on, is wearing a risque top which exposes her nipples and resembles dominatrix outfits – it might as well be a leather band crossing her torso. Also she stands in a sensual pose – from the way she holds her arms to the way her lips are pursed.
I really don’t see how this can be judged a “normal” child picture – I would not dream of taking a picture of my child in that position, much less publicizing it for every degenerate man in the world to look at – the parents should be sent to the slammer! It is clearly child pornography, repulsive and disgusting. If a normal person tried to develop a picture of their own child like this in a Fotomat or the like they would properly be arrested. Why would someone take this photograph except to sexually exploit these poor girls? – but then to sell the pictures and even to post them publicly, this reveals a disgusting degeneracy!
But, thanks to the authorities, it is now totally legal to spread this image through the Internet. Now the paedophiles (male and female) will have a perfectly erotic child picture to masturbate to legally. Congratulations, and thanks again for making the world a better place!
October 26th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Shame on the photographer and shame on the parents for allowing such a manipulative piece of photography to be taken. There is no merit in this, just sadness
October 26th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Um, to me, this picture is really bad and disgusting. It is not art, it is not funny, and why would someone want this picture? Who took this picture? Where were the parents? To me, this is child porn, pure and simple. These are kids, and should be innocent. Kids are not sexual, people.
October 26th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
I find this picture truly disgusting. I do not believe this photographer is talented, no matter what they say about her.
When this little girl grows up how do you think SHE will feel about how she was posed. By the way this was for shock value only. Two little girls Belly dancing would NOT be in these positions.
I am sure the pedophiles will love this picture.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
199s comments about Nan Goldins abilities as a photographer are spot on. Her lifes work is absolute crap! Seems she can’t operate a camera (and she uses some of the best quality gear out there- Leicas etc) for toffee. There is absolutely no skill or variety of technique in her work. If she does get her subject/s in focus with no camera shake then that was, it seems, just fortune smiling on her that moment. She became a ‘known & respected photographer’ amongst the drug addled NY alternative scene in the 70’s & 80’s and by any account was pretty fucked up on drugs herself, but hey she managed to convince the hip crowd of the time that what she did was cool & art…..what an ego….what a bunch of twats! As for ‘Klara and Edda Belly Dancing’ No its not porn, its certainly not art, it is a typical family snapshot badly taken and certainly not worthy of public display in any context or for profit. And this is where it becomes questionable. I hope Klara & Edda sue the pants off Nan Goldin for exploitation and breach of copyright (when they’re old enough) and put her back in the gutters of NY where she should never have risen from. As for Elton John, boy you’re a fool for believing the hype around Goldin. You were duped – sucker! More money than sense. Not his fault they told him it was an ‘art investment’. Personally I wouldn’t give Goldin’s work space on my lavvy roll holder!?!
October 26th, 2007 at 9:32 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.
**********************************************
Calling this picture pornography is simply ridiculous!
Obviously some find it appalling, but I just don’t see how any sexual connotation can be found. It appears to me very much like two girls acting silly… much as I could expect from my nieces… it is as innocent as the children depicted.
The whole picture is unscripted and does not appear to be “posed” in any way. There is nothing more innocent than seeing two children playing with no preconceived notions and totally unabashed.
In my opinion, I think those that so vociferously object to such innocence are the ones that should be watched! Its kind of like a thief never trusts another and a liar always thinks others lie too.
October 26th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Gregory writes:
I think those that so vociferously object to such innocence are the ones that should be watched! Its kind of like a thief never trusts another and a liar always thinks others lie too.
**********************************************
Sorry that we want to take your child porn away, Gregory. The girls doing that might (though I think not) be innocent, but, an adult taking pictures of a child in that position – let alone to share with others – IS NOT.
Even if you were right (which you are not) that these pictures are “innocent” and not posed, would you replace it with a picture of your wife spread-eagled naked on the bed while she is “innocently” reading a book (and not even in the sexual context of that picture, with its sexual names)? Or, do you think she might object?
Do you think these young exploited girls consented to to naked pictures of them being publicly displayed? Are they old enough to consent, do you think? Or don’t you care b/c you get such joy at looking at these pictures?
October 27th, 2007 at 2:09 am
I have a lot of issues with a lot of the comments on this board. Of course this is art. Anything can be listed as art, and everything is art. Yes, some is disgusting and vile, and others are innocent and beautiful. This picture alone has been viewed both ways on this board. This is the exact reason this is art because of the debate that comes with it. Anyone can take any painting, picture, sculture, watercolor, whatever and have different opinions about it. They SHOULD have different opinions about it. The opinions though tells us what kind of people the viewers are, not the art. So let’s stop debating that this is art. Maybe you don’t like it, but just as a bad, tasteless movie may be art, so is this.
On a side note, personally, I don’t like the photo, but I am not going to condemn those that do. It is everyone’s perogative to like / dislike what they want.
October 27th, 2007 at 2:40 am
If the purpose of art is to inspire debate and thought, then with 206 comments on some blog by a bunch people with no concept of art…I’d say this photo qualifies as art.
October 27th, 2007 at 5:18 am
If an image is being considered as a work of art, a responsible critic will consider it in that light before accepting or discarding the idea. He/she also has a duty to approach the subject intellectually and objectively, especially in examining a work distinguished by the strong emotional response it provokes. Clearly, this photo evokes sexuality and features a composition that is blatantly and quintessentially pornographic; yet it is also purely candid and vividly captures the beauty and innocence of childhood. Its artistic value is derived from the dramatic juxtaposition of its coincidentally pornographic elements and the subjects’ undeniable innocence and obliviousness to the concept of impurity. It evokes relevant questions regarding the meaning of sexuality, guilt, perversion, innocence, etc. The “poor quality” and seeming carelessness of the image is relevant in that it simultaneously evokes the seediness of amateur pornography and the sentimental aesthetic of the snapshot (a major cultural presence) which provides a context and an emotional entry for the viewer. The viewer’s discomfort arising from the combination of all of these things is central to the artistic relevance of the work. The photograph may be regarded as “found art” assisted by the artistic awareness of the photographer and the unique nature of the photographic medium. Whether it represents lowgrade art, folk art or fine/high art is a question left to the individual critic.
As for the question of ethics–whether the photo represents a violation of the subjects’ privacy–the answer is subjective. The artist and the parents/guardians of the children presumably do not see any victimization. Fortunately or unfortunately, the authority of parents to preside over the rights of minors is a model generally accepted by society and central to numerous laws. Meanwhile, regardless of whether the photograph has artistic value, the question of whether it is pornographic in a legal sense or represents a violation of legally protected rights is purely an objective legal argument–one that the accusers will probably lose. My personal opinion, for what it’s worth, is that the photograph is relevant and worthwhile, but representative of an unfortunate and mistaken movement toward the idea that art is defined by how shocking and provocative it can be, and like popular culture, is concerned first and foremost with sexuality. The incredible power of art is so much broader than that.
October 27th, 2007 at 5:43 am
Although it may be suspicious of an adult to feel the need to show a child in this position, it seems clear to me that the intention is to basically laugh in our faces- that’s what ‘cult’ artists DO. By taking this picture Goldin has simply put it out there amongst all the media hype and said ‘There, what do you think of that?’ and the answer has been a massive media wave that has seperated the community into Goldin lovers and Goldin haters- damaging Goldin’s reputation in one respect but creating a cult following. It is (some of) the members of this following that need watching, perhaps not the artist. There are those who percieve it as art and those who perceive it as child porn.
Although this is the case, artists are naturally persecuted for their work because the purpose of art is to shock and awe- we would have some very boring art if this was not the case. Personally, I’m going to sit on the fence and watch the factions battle it out.
*to put all of this in perspective, I have sat through countless old holiday videos of my friends running naked on the beach at a similar age to this, where nobody rushed to cover them. How many pictures exist of nude children who simply didn’t want to put their clothes on just playing in the garden? Surely we all have similar embarrasing baby pictures.
October 27th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Nan Goldin could be a highly respected photographer and artist, but if this picture is art then what is porn? We should respect our children. What he did was disgusting. If u like so much this, so called art, why dont you take a similar picture of your own children and display it to your friends. Im sure they will like it, after all, its Art.
October 27th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
wow great art…… yeh right…. another case of somone getting to much press over nothing. is it porn… NO… is it worthy to be in a art gallery….. NO…. its a bad picture of a couple of kids playing….. hell I have nakid pics of my kids in a swimming pool when they were only a couple years old…. does that make me an artist? and for you defending this as art your just as guilty of being hypocritical as the art nazi’s you think are trying to stifle your right to free speach. as with all art….and freedom of the press…. just cause its out there doesnt mean the public has to buy it.
October 27th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
in response to the person who said the pourpose of art is to inpire debate…… i would counter that the pourpose of art should be to inspire…… i just wonder what kind of people this photo inspires
October 27th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Maybe she is respected by other pornographers and child exploiters, maybe she is respected by what passes for artists these days. But that photo is not art, and it is exploitive of children, and if it was a posed shot, it is child pornography.
Imagine saying to such a little girl “OK, spread your legs some more, look at the other girls panties”
The sickness in your mind saying that, and the “artist” most certainly said some thing like that, is obvious.
October 27th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
If Gabs’ barbed comment was directed at me, I can only say that I was merely trying to be objective about the subject. I should have known how quickly an objective argument can degrade into personal insult.
I would say that a pornographic photo is a picture taken for the purpose of titillating or arousing its audience. Art would not do this. Who finds a photograph of a pair of naked children titillating? Some very strange people if you ask me. I was trying to put across with my previous point that those who see this art as titillating are those who need to be locked away.
Even (adult) ‘life’ drawings are seen by many as majestic depictions of the grace and beauty of the human form. They are in no way made to be titillating, only percieved as such by some sorry individuals.
As for the unnecessary attack on my friends, should I show a holiday snap of my currently teenage daughter when she was 4 and playing naked, I’m sure the reaction would be laughter and a broody ‘aw’ from the friend, embarrassed laughter from the daughter and the next innocent holiday snap would follow. I would certainly not have taken any pictures of a child with the purpose of arousing anybody.
I am not a sympathiser with child pornography, child pornographers or paedophiles. I believe I have also stated that artists are naturally persecuted for their art, which is what must make this entire discussion a huge joke for the artists- we are playing into their hands by arguing the rights and wrongs of what they do.
I won’t lie, it is a hornet’s nest when people’s rights come into debate, but we aren’t going to work out anything concrete by insulting each other in online forums.
Apologies,
Sean
October 27th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
IMHO, this photo is not pornography. It is however something any respectable parent should never have allowed outside their home for public viewing, I wouldn’t consider it and “artful” peice, either. It’s merely a photograph of a couple of kids playing and having fun. I have two daughters myself (one of which is almost three) who laugh and giggles as she runs through the house nekkid as the day she was born. This picture should stay in the family album where it belongs. Just my .02 -Richard4106
October 27th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
If you follow the whole story Elton John did not just own this one piece he bought the whole collection. This photo was just one of many and because the subjects are children it is causing controversy. And as mentioned before on this site, this picture has been around for almost 10 yrs. Why the big deal now? If the girls in the picture find it offensive and demeaning to themselves then they have a right to sue whomever is responsible for making it public, when they are 18 if they are not already. It should be up to them.
October 27th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
The difference between the picture of the little girls and the pictures that you montaged are striking. The montage is of adults, the other has children in it. Big difference there and kind of scary that you don’t see it that way.
October 27th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
This is a terrible thing to do to innocent children. why is the child running around naked in the first place? Why has someone dressed the other in a sexy little scarf and undies? Why is the adult wanting to expose their child or a friend’s in this way? There is far too much child abuse these days and to do this for “art” is ridiculous. How embarrassing to the child when their friend find it one day. Is the child getting a cut of her earnings?
For an adult to do this or for one to want to own this piece of “art” aka child porn is a sad statement on our society. We know it’s porn, don’t try to make it innocent to cover up the truth. As one person commented, the picture would not have been taken or displayed if the child had on clothes.
October 27th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
That is horrible. The poor little girl was probably forced to pose that way! And the photograher is using the fact that she is a photograher to get it displayed legally. What in the world was she doing naked? It would have been a much better picture with clothes on. And laying on the floor under the other little half naked girl? That photo is saying”this is porno, but you can’t prove it or stop it!” Shameful! Poor , poor little innocent children being forced to do that!
October 27th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Has the world gotten so sick that this is not called pornography.
People can argue all the want and say it’s art. But I bet everyone that says it’s “art” is getting a sexual turn on from it. It makes me want to puke.
The photographer knew exactly what she was doing, creating controversy to make a buck. Shame on her.
Two little girls having fun playing and an artist has to expose and use them for her financial profit. SICK SICK SICK
October 27th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
I too have photos of my kids playing naked. But geez, I don’t take pictures of their private parts and post them for the world to see.
I don’t want some pervert looking at them with sexual lust. C’mon any parent out there would not want there daughter’s genitalia exposed to the world. If so, they are SICK.
October 27th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
if this is NOT porn, why did the person that put it up blot out the little girl’s vagina? hmmmm…..
October 27th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
That’s pretty sick! It would take the twisted mind of a homosexual to buy something like that and call it art.
October 27th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Wow! Certainly something worth being controversial. To me, it is not Art. It is, as hms #13 said, “She took it exactly to shock and see if she would get away.” Okay, not exactly that but I certainly see this person as exploiting children. The “shock and awe” that Bush and his cronies coined has been going on in this fashion for a while. I do believe the main flow of society will sense (even if not admit) that something is wrong with taking pictures of children’s genitals and posting them as art.
Hopefully the children will grow up and be allowed to have a healthy life. When they reach that point, is it likely they will consider this display as Art? I think the mainstream suggests that they will not. The point is that we do not know. So should we protect the left or the right “possibility” of who they might become? Certainly, since they are children and cannot operate cognitively at that level, they need to be helped/protected by us older folks.
My inclination is to protect towards the right side (politically, not brain hemispheres).
I think that many more times than not (actually it is fact, not my opinion) there are numerous events that children portray that could be embarrassing as adults that are not recorded for all time. I believe it would be safer and morally more correct to err on the side of “normality” than on “Art”.
I am an elementary school teacher and attest from direct experience, these kids do not understand the magnitude of the consequences of posting of these pictures on the Internet or in an Art show. I do not believe they are being protected properly and that there will be repercussions for them…for simply being kids…in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Art, if defined as taking a cheap snapshot of exposed children having fun, is what we have to look forward to; I can tell you now that I have no interest in attending any shows or museums of Art anytime soon.
Truly a poor show on many levels here.
October 27th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
To Betty,
EXACTLY!!!!!!!
October 27th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
I wonder if the little girl in the photo will think it is OK to publish – not sure when the picture was taken but if she is old enough to understand what are her thoughts?
I do not think this photo is appropriate for display.
October 27th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
I think it helps to remember what many people have already mentioned…art is subjective. Whether or not it qualifies as art isn’t really the issue. Is this art?….yes. Is this good art?….not to me.
Also, I think it’s presumptuous to call it pornographic. But considering what the camera’s focus is…would it be, perhaps, a bad idea to put it on a wall and have lots of people look at it?….the artist damn sure knew this.
Lastly, there is a line somewhere nudity and pornography that most of the prudes posting here seem to have forgotten about. Granted, this picture does stray closer to the porn side of the line than most people consider acceptable, but really, this is not a sexual/pornographic picture. If you see it that way, that’s your problem…
October 27th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
…. As for the argument that ‘because it inspires debate therefore it must be art’…. this is a seriously flawed argument. By that rational the holocaust is art!
Oooooh… Ive done something..its art……BULLSHIT!!!
October 27th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Art requires effort, skill and a thorough understanding of subject, meaning, interpretative issues (if you’re trying to be challenging) and respect for your subject. Nan Goldin displays none of the above in this and in many of her prior works.
She got some kudos (and dosh)in the 70s and has milked it for all she could since.
Get a grip people, she is no artist.
‘Phototext’ earlier tried to compare Goldins efforts with this shot: http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/lm25.html
What a fucking reprobate! Saying this is a poor quality photograph, this is a historical document, well exposed and composed considering the conditions in which it was taken( Hey, the guy that took it works for the Magnum agency, and boy you have to be good and have bottle to work for them).
Even if it was ‘a poor quality photograph’ it still tells an important story just like Capa’s pix from the D-Day landings ( and they are truly technically dreadful, but understandable) and thats the difference. Goldin may be regarded as a documentary photographer, and a pretty crap one at that, but she is certainly no artist, and anyone believing that tag should get their head examined.
October 27th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Art is loosely defined as “that which appeals to the sense of beauty.”
One time i sneezed with a mouth full of food and found myself thinking the pattern it made on the floor was beautiful.
I might call it art, but i would not take a picture and force other people to see it and demand they see it as art as well.
October 28th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Those who say a girl that age couldn’t give consent to this photo should also refrain from sending minors to school or religious instruction or a thousand other things, on the same grounds.
Rosie Bowden, who was photographed by Robert Mapplethorpe at the age of 3 in 1976, was so pleased with the result as a 30+ adult that she wanted to post the photo (which is also in New York’s Guggenheim collection) in a restaurant she ran in England. In that photo her genital area is showing also.
The Goldin is an uncomfortable photo in some ways, undeniably. Not all objections to it are weak; I agree with some, but still would permit it to be displayed.
Some fears are understandable, but are they clearly justified? There is no evidence I know of that a photo such as this increases crime.
Some reactions seem driven by fear and loathing of the body, which teaches children debilitating shame and guilt by forcing adult insecurity and ignorance on them. What ever happened to educating children from a position of respect for the body and confidence about it—all of it? There are ways to teach about privacy without demonizing the body or sexuality.
There’s much here that says nudity = (inappropriate) sexual activity. How is that healthy for young children? How does teaching them lifelong body phobia protect them?
Artistic representations are an important class of expression. Whether the photo is good or bad doesn’t enter into the main question. There’s a complex snapshot aesthetic to a lot of recent photography.
I recommend the book Pictures of Innocence by Anne Higonnet, a fine attempt to sort out many of the issues.
October 28th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Yes, oh yes! Look at the responses to realize the true judgment. People who treasure and protect children are appalled and the pedophiles are trying to find the video! This is a woman photographer! Is she a mother? And if she is-what kind of mother is she to think that this photograph is art. Where does she draw the moral, safe line with her own children! If she wanted to publicly display a vagina, why didn’t she display her own and not a child! She is also a pervert! She’s proven it by profiting from lude and sexually explicit photographs of innocent children. God forbid there is a public video!
Even Hugh Heffner uses only consenting adults!
Is she so different from Chet Stiles? They both sexually used innocent children for their own personal pleasure and gains!
October 28th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
P.S. It is not just the splayed open view of the naked little girls’ intimate-private (Yes! key words “Intimate and Private”) parts but that she is underneath and between the legs of an another little girl imitating a very erotic adult dance. This may be cute to a loving parent but should never have been made “Public”!
That is what made it “Immoral”!
Though I taught my children how to dance but I left the belly dancing till their Teens and they were dressed!
And their cutsie childhood pictures are for mine and their embarrassing memories only!
October 28th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
P.S.S.
Would you want own your children “Publicly Displayed Like This?”
October 28th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Yes, oh yes. The issue is…
The view of some-one else outside of our own small selves!
In this day and age of our innocent children being the sacrifice of the wicked and depraved, shouldn’t we do everything we can to protect them from “Their” wicked, perverted view??? Not Allow or Promote that Perverted View!!!
There is also an-other point that should be noticed…
Due to the uncaring acts of “Nan Goldin and Elton John”…
These little innocent girls are now and forever “Branded” in public view.
These little girls’ innocence swept away for adult gain!
Their names, their faces, their posturing, their bodies now known to the world to be forever associated with this view of them for the rest of their lives! Just like that of that poor little girl “Darren Tuck”!
Why do think most children, who are victims of Crime, names and faces are not made public???
To PROTECT The INNOCENT! “Darren Tuck” needed to be done to receive public help, (but even the police did not post the actual video film itself- only enough to identify her face and age) but these 2 little girls’ results were the choice of “Nan Goldin and Elton John”.
Where is the “Protection” for these little girls?
Look outside of yourself a moment.
Into the real world view.
What does this photograph say? It says look! It says this must be okay because “We are calling it ART”!
We as a caring public need to say NO, Stop!
Even Hugh Heffner uses only consenting adults in his “ART” !
Even to post his pictures publicly – he is required to have public approval and then only with strict rules that must be adhered to by all involved!
Where is the childrens’ approval? -They are not old enough to consent! They are not able to know the effect of this public view of themselves!!! Especially of the long term effect on themselves!!! As I said before…
Yes, oh yes! Look at the responses to realize the true judgment. People who treasure and protect children are appalled and the pedophiles are trying to find the video!
“Nan Goldin and Elton John” did not care about the results of their actions, on These and All Children!
Especially the results on these 2 little girls, and they need to answer for them!
“Nan Goldin and Elton John” put these childrens’ Innocence in Harms Way!
And the Officials that now sit in Judgment of imoral/indecient view!
Would they want their own children seen by the general public, Like This????
This photograph depicts these children in an adult view and that is WRONG and Harmful to These and All Children!
What wicked adult that views this photo – won’t have this image in their minds’ eye when they view other children in public??? Maybe your own child…Maybe your own neighbor…
Would you want own your children “Publicly Viewed Like This?”
The matter of this photograph goes -in reality goes Way Beyond One Individuals’ View!!!
That very protection is what we as a Caring, Responsible Adults are trying to do, by Protesting this and all Subject Matter like this!!!!
Not to allow any child be viewed, even possibly, as a sexual view!!!!
Step outside yourself and look at the public harm this does!!
WHERE would it STOP???
“Live and Let Live” does not work here because it is really a matter of “Live and Let Die”!
Do we as a society turn our heads and just let a Childs‘innocence die? Maybe just certain children?
Our Duty is to protect the children – who are (as a race of human beings) our only true gift of ourselves – the children who are our next generation of adults!!!!
Do we let them be damaged and sacrificed??? Yes, Damaged and Sacrificed!!!
I Know. I was a child victim. Everyway imaginable.
My siblings at that time were not touched with the same harm but they still suffered, and even tried to protect me (imagine children protecting another child because the adults wouldn’t) because I suffered and they even begged me to take them with me when I fled.
I thought they would be safer when I would no longer be there.
But I was wrong, for when I left, the adults turned on them!
I had escaped but they were still trapped!
So I stopped the adults by reporting them!
I (still a child) had to protect the children because the adults wouldn’t!
Yes, oh yes. That is the issue!
The view of some-one else outside of our own small selves!
In this day and age of our innocent children being the sacrifice of the wicked and depraved, shouldn’t we do everything we can to protect them from “Their” wicked, perverted view??? Not Allow or Promote that Perverted View!!!
There is also an-other point that should be noticed…
Due to the uncaring acts of “Nan Goldin and Elton John”…
These little innocent girls are now and forever “Branded” in public view.
These little girls’ innocence swept away for adult gain!
Their names, their faces, their posturing, their bodies now known to the world to be forever associated with this view of them for the rest of their lives! Just like that of that poor little girl “Darren Tuck”!
Why do think most children, who are victims of Crime, names and faces are not made public???
To PROTECT The INNOCENT! “Darren Tuck” needed to be done to receive public help, (but even the police did not post the actual video film itself- only enough to identify her face and age) but these 2 little girls’ results were the choice of “Nan Goldin and Elton John”.
Where is the “Protection” for these little girls?
Look outside of yourself a moment.
Into the real world view.
What does this photograph say? It says look! It says this must be okay because “We are calling it ART”!
We as a caring public need to say NO, Stop!
Even Hugh Heffner uses only consenting adults in his “ART” !
Even to post his pictures publicly – he is required to have public approval and then only with strict rules that must be adhered to by all involved!
Where is the childrens’ approval? -They are not old enough to consent! They are not able to know the effect of this public view of themselves!!! Especially of the long term effect on themselves!!! As I said before…
Yes, oh yes! Look at the responses to realize the true judgment. People who treasure and protect children are appalled and the pedophiles are trying to find the video!
“Nan Goldin and Elton John” did not care about the results of their actions, on These and All Children!
Especially the results on these 2 little girls, and they need to answer for them!
“Nan Goldin and Elton John” put these childrens’ Innocence in Harms Way!
And the Officials that now sit in Judgment of imoral/indecient view!
Would they want their own children seen by the general public, Like This????
This photograph depicts these children in an adult view and that is WRONG and Harmful to These and All Children!
What wicked adult that views this photo – won’t have this image in their minds’ eye when they view other children in public??? Maybe your own child…Maybe your own neighbor…
Would you want own your children “Publicly Viewed Like This?”
The matter of this photograph goes -in reality goes Way Beyond One Individuals’ View!!!
That very protection is what we as a Caring, Responsible Adults are trying to do, by Protesting this and all Subject Matter like this!!!!
Not to allow any child be viewed, even possibly, as a sexual view!!!!
Step outside yourself and look at the public harm this does!!
WHERE would it STOP???
“Live and Let Live” does not work here because it is really a matter of “Live and Let Die”!
Do we as a society turn our heads and just let a Childs‘innocence die? Maybe just certain children?
Our Duty is to protect the children – who are (as a race of human beings) our only true gift of ourselves – the children who are our next generation of adults!!!!
Do we let them be damaged and sacrificed??? Yes, Damaged and Sacrificed!!!
I Know. I was a child victim. Everyway imaginable.
My siblings at that time were not touched with the same harm but they still suffered, and even tried to protect me (imagine children protecting another child because the adults wouldn’t) because I suffered and they even begged me to take them with me when I fled.
I thought they would be safer when I would no longer be there.
But I was wrong, for when I left, the adults turned on them!
I had escaped but they were still trapped!
So I stopped the adults by reporting them!
I (still a child) had to protect the children because the adults wouldn’t!
So I know that this doesn’t stop till some-one stops it!
That very protection is what we as a Caring, Responsible Adults are Supposed to do!
Not just for ourselves, but for all!!!
Here is a Question for you to ponder…
We have Crossing Guards responsible for getting our children safely across the street, not because we as parents haven’t taught them the rules of the child’s own crossing safety but to stop other drivers who may be careless and uncaring of our childs’ safety crossing those streets!
Do we as a parent’s say that I cross my own children, so the Crossing Guards for all children, are not necessary???
So I know that this doesn’t stop till some-one stops it!
That very protection is what we as a Caring, Responsible Adults are Supposed to do!
Not just for ourselves, but for all!!!
Here is a Question for you to ponder…
We have Crossing Guards responsible for getting our children safely across the street, not because we as parents haven’t taught them the rules of the child’s own crossing safety but to stop other drivers who may be careless and uncaring of our childs’ safety crossing those streets!
Do we as a parent’s say that I cross my own children, so the Crossing Guards for all children, are not necessary???
October 28th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
P.S.
Who in their Right mind, who may have any caring at all for children, have children do a adult erotic, sexual dance, and that is what “Belly Dancing” is(go ahead and look it up), especially Naked!
Take a photograph of it and then to make it worse, sell it to some-one else and that person publicly display it for their own personal gratification???
Don’t the bare facts sound a lot like child pornography???
Even pedophiles say that “they -themselves”, “Love” children!!!
October 28th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
this is porn i dont get that if you look even in a porn magazine that in the adds there are stars over privet areas of the woman .Also if senitors and politishens say that a picture of little girls in thier underwear is child porn and the people that have pictures like that one on there computer get arested then the person taking the should be arested as well. Also to the photographer of this picture and proble the mother of these girls i hope you know theres probly some sick ass perverts giting there rocks off to this picture.
October 28th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Also as a father of three i have the right to say you should get your kids takin from you !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
October 28th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Yes, oh yes! Look at the responses to realize the true judgment. People who treasure and protect children are appalled and the pedophiles are trying to find the video! This is a woman photographer! Is she a mother? And if she is-what kind of mother is she to think that this photograph is art. Where does she draw the moral, safe line with her own children! If she wanted to publicly display a vagina, why didn’t she display her own and not a child! She is also a pervert! She’s proven it by profiting from lude and sexually explicit photographs of innocent children. God forbid there is a public video!
Even Hugh Heffner uses only consenting adults!
Is she so different from Chet Stiles? They both sexually used innocent children for their own personal pleasure and gains!
P.S. It is not just the splayed open view of the naked little girls’ intimate-private (Yes! key words “Intimate and Private”) parts but that she is underneath and between the legs of an another little girl imitating a very erotic adult dance. This may be cute to a loving parent but should never have been made “Public”!
That is what made it “Immoral”!
Though I taught my children how to dance but I left the belly dancing till their Teens and they were dressed!
And their cutsie childhood pictures are for mine and their embarrassing memories only!
P.S.S. Would you want own your children “Publicly Displayed Like This?”
October 28th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Dr. Paul Rapoport …is a Professor Emeritus in the School of the Arts at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. He is a member of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality and Editor of the quarterly Going Natural / Au naturel, for the Federation of Canadian Naturists.
Your insinuation that a child of that age ‘could’ give their consent for a photograph of this nature is totally stupid and way off the mark of this discussion!
Children are innocent in their ideas and actions and agree to just about anything in the spirit of fun. Which can lead them into very dangerous situations because they don’t know or understand the full scope of ramifications?
Adults do!
It is up to Grownups to make the decisions for them in order to protect them from those who would prey or hurt them.
But then I guess you can just flash your credentials to the parents of abused, raped, killed, kidnapped children and say that the children were able to give their consent.
You are a very sick person to make such a statement.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but who is the beholder of that eye?
October 28th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
To True Parent: I never said that a child of a young age could give consent in a meaningful adult way. In fact, I agree with you.
Your second and third paragraphs in your 9:35 statement make much sense; but you don’t add anything by attacking someone personally for things he never said, ignoring most of what he did.
I am sorry indeed to hear that you were abused as a child. That may partly explain why you write as you do. My remarks were not specifically addressed to individuals in your situation.
I ask you, nonetheless, to see that you cannot use your own situation by itself to generalize. If you could, then one auto accident would require all cars to be removed from the road.
Write me privately if you like. I wish you well.
October 28th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
One further comment. It’s instructive to read many of these posts because they claim to know what’s in the mind not only of the photographer but of other photographers, the girls in the photo, their parents, other photographic subjects, Elton John, and every other viewer who would see this photo. What many people do is simply project their own issues onto everyone else.
To make a case for banning this photo you must show much more than that its presentation makes you uneasy or disgusted or angry. That reaction itself is totally understandable. But how is it a basis for true discussion?
There are significant social and artistic issues involved; and I don’t think the answers are all obvious.
There is no doubt that children, especially young ones, must be protected to a large extent by adults. In some of the unfounded, irrational comments here, the question of protection disappears, along with every other point for discussion — it just becomes a matter of who produces the loudest rant.
October 28th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
And about the CPS deciding that the image was not indecent.
“Child Protection Services” just let a child in foster care die this past week before they took any action.
So… Does any one really think their judgment is Sound enough to trust as Reality???
October 28th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Dr. Paul Rapoport… Reponce.
I do make sense, also in everything else that I stated -which you ignored most of what I said.
As for the being sorry for me -that is misplaced. Your sympathy should be to effect positive change and safety for all other children still suffering or who might fall victim to predators.
As for ART, this photograph is crummy but the subject matter which shot differently could be acceptable-but it wasn’t shot differently was it!
It was shot in a pose that most adults themselves, wouldn’t publicly portray.
I am also an amateur artist studying to put my art out into public view and I even draw nudes. Even My family approves of them. Provoking thought, showing emotion.
This is not art! As for the artist, the adults in my childhood also said that they had good reasons for doing what they did, but they were really just selfish and didn’t care.
Doesn’t this photograph shadow them, for she put these childrens’ innocence in harms way for her own personal self.
This is just publicly Harmful to children and should not be allowed!!!
I not so shallow as to think “that all cars should be taken off the road because of one accident” But I do know that the drivers have to be responsible, safe drivers. Adhering to the stringent rules, regulations and laws for driving on public roads, for everyone’s protection and safety.
This photograph does not adhere to any child’s protection or safety!
But in fact just the opposite!
P.S. If we don’t learn from the lessons of our life and use them for the betterment of ourselves and others – then why live???
October 28th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
The picture isn’t porn. That seems obvious to me, being a father of two little kids. But it’s an odd photo because I’m not clear –at least from the photo I see on this site– what the picture is depicting. Where is the “shower” in the photo coming from? Also, why would this photo ever be sold and released to the public. I have plenty of silly photos of my kids playing in the nude but I would never sale them unless they had a professional look which this photo clearly does not.
And another also: What is it about the photo that appealed to Sir Elton?
Many unanswered questions, but I’m not a collector, so I suppose I’m a bit out of the loop when it comes to critiquing art. But bottom line: The photo and the controversy all are very strange and alienating to me!
October 28th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Do notice that in allmost all of the posts, the discussion is of the little naked girls’ pose.
Obviously we all can’t be wrong or misguided as to the general public view of ART.
The rest of the picture is frankly critiqued except this one view!!!
Which is just plain, an indecent view of a child!!!
It does not matter how you diplay it.
We can’t all be wrong-can we. Or doesn’t the public view count on the issue of ART???
I thought ART is for the publics view!!!
Then why don’t we get a vote that counts???
October 29th, 2007 at 12:41 am
hitsusa Says:
September 27th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Amanda’s comment has been removed…
Sorry hitusa but it is still there!
IP address confirmed Says: #53
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……..
REPORTED
October 29th, 2007 at 4:47 am
Dr. Rappaport writes:
Those who say a girl that age couldn’t give consent to this photo should also refrain from sending minors to school or religious instruction or a thousand other things, on the same grounds.
************************************************
That’s where social norms come in. Not that our hedonistic, materialistic society has many left – the only thing the so-called “liberals” complain about, to the point of wanting to kill them, is someone who still has morality. “Let them do as they please” is the refrain of the amoralist. Or might I say, Satanist? After all, Satanism, contrary to the misperception that it relishes in causing pain, is simply the religion of hedonism. And how, exactly, does “secular humanism” differ?
So what do the liberal “secular humanists” desire more than anything? To destroy traditional morality. There is no right or wrong, to them, there is only the one principle that “I enjoy it so it must be good”, with the proviso, that nobody else is provably hurt in the process.
They say Communism was to destroy religion and morality, the family, and tradition, and that Communism failed. I say: Communism succeeded, and nowhere more, than in the West. The United States and Britain are becoming more Communist by the day, and Bush’s Leninist “international revolution” to bring “freedom, equality, fraternity” – say, where have I heard that before? – is but a sad replay of a horrid past.
If you read the goals of Communism, as printed in the Congressional Record in 1963, excerpted from the book “The Naked Communist”, a great many of which have been realized. I quote the relevant ones here:
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
Regardless, though, of whether this type of “art” advances an agenda, or whether or not it is “art”, it is pornography. Whoever said that pornography can’t be art? Of course it can – pornography can be very “beautiful”, “controversial”, can require great skill, or whatever other criteria you want to set for “art”. However not all “art” need be tolerated by society. The example of snuff films has been mentioned.
Heck, you might even consider the Stiles video, in which he rapes a 3-year-old girl, “art” – certainly it would cause “controversy” and seemingly that is the definition used by some of the “secular humanists” in this comment section.
October 29th, 2007 at 5:01 am
Somehow I didn’t paste the two most relevant of the 45 Communist principles in the above post:
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
Gee, you think???
October 29th, 2007 at 6:24 am
Here’s one more pertaining to art and, in light of some of the arguments being made here, number 27 as well:
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”
…
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”
October 29th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Some of you are way too emotional in your responses, both those in support or against this picture.
To attack and insult one another reduces the effectiveness of your response.
I like #86 kpceta’s response. An intelligent and well expressed comment which I agree with.
I lean a little more toward calling it porn but it’s definitely not art. Especially if as some of you suggest it’s effect is to shock. It’s definitely exploitive of children’s innocence. Just look back to Amanda’s response.
When the Madonna was depicted covered in Elephant dung, placed in a NY museum and called ‘Art’, it was wrong and NOT ART! To photograph children naked posed in this way is not art. It’s exploitation! It’s also an ugly photograph.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:23 am
Sage, right on! Gotta agree with ya. My buddy George W. Bush is a Communist. Dick Cheney is the Anti-Christ. Up is Down. Black is white. Stupid quotations are real.
Are you by any stretch of no imagination a member of the American Nazi Party? Or just that too liberal John Birch Society? I saw your words 40 years ago, the very self-same ones, and thought they had been laughed off the planet by that other Communist, Richard Nixon.
Are you somewhere on Mars, then? You must be, because you don’t address any issues on Earth with any sense. Try turnng off the spout and thinking. Or are the right and ability to think a Communist plot?
Oops, gave it away.
October 30th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Is it art…? yes, not to my taste wouldn’t hang it in my living room, I prefer seascapes, and sailing ships. But hang it in a nice frame in a lighted gallery and it could be seen as an expression of modern art.
Is it child porn..? my take on that is clearly some of you have never seen real child porn. Is the little girl crying because something the size of a bat is being put insider her for the hundredth time?!!
No, ‘That’ photo is being taken some where at this very moment, and will be on a web site you have to pay with a credit card to get on to. Child porn makers don’t put their pictures in frames and hang them in lighted galleries.
There are thousands of children being exploited every day in the most horrible ways. So long as we continue to look at a picture like this one and call it porn they will continue to be. Because the cops are in an art museum taking down paintings when they should be on the web arresting site owners
October 30th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Paul Rapoport, I always appreciate it when someone resorts to a string of non-sequitors, ad hominem attacks, and pointless bluster. These are indicators of someone who cannot address the merits and has lost the debate.
I take it you are a neo-con – i.e., someone who loves to spread your ideas, if you can call them that, by force.
October 31st, 2007 at 6:11 pm
I repeat what I said in comment *168
….. I believe the woman that took the photo is a lesbian. Now I have concerns about this photo from that point of view……
This woman damn well knew what she was doing when she took this photo.
….. One more point: Why on earth would the children’s parents have agreed to letting their children be photographed in this way? I know if it had been my kids I would have been disgusted. I agree whole heartedly with comment * 34 “…All involved should be ashamed…”
The parents of the two girls should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves
One thing she is very good at is self-publicity through controversy. She’s certainly not a good photographer.
November 1st, 2007 at 5:50 pm
I believe Nan Goldin to be an excellent artist and photographer. Her photographs deal with issues that remain taboo and uneasy for some of us to deal with. I believe she took the photograph knowing that, if exhibited, it would curse controversy and disruption to those who do not wish to deal with such issues. If you like the image or not is not important. What is important is that the image creates an environment for us to talk about concerns we have about images of children.
November 7th, 2007 at 8:10 am
[...] read more | digg story [...]
November 9th, 2007 at 3:12 am
That is not art, and it’s not good photography either! Any photographer with a social conscious would not publish that as art. Yes, it might have been an innocent moment to those children, but it not an innocent action by showing it to anyone. If the little girl was laying in a different angle where her genitals were not showing then maybe I could say it was art. Anyone who likes this photo is obviously a pervert, was probably mollested as a child, and will probably molest children themselves.
November 19th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
If Goldin had a vast collection of similar images would this be regarded as child pornography? I think so. But the fact that this was one image, to be read in context with the rest of the exhibition, highlights its artistic qualities and the documentatiom of the happening of the girls playing together.
Granted the artist knew what she was doing in order to emote controversy; this should make us consider the state of the art world today and it’s consumer instead of mud-slinging.
There’s plenty of reasons why the piece was initially impounded and there are reasons for why it was returned, which need to be accepted.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
I honestly think this photo is stupid! What is Art about it? It figures a GAY person would have a photo like this in their house. Gay people are really f ‘ed up in the head. They always have to do something to put themselves in the spotlight and then if you disagree with them you are considered to be ‘backward’ or ‘not politically correct’. I am so sick of the Rosie and Elton type freaks. Real Art is Van Gogh or Picasso or Monet not this CREEPY photo.
December 9th, 2007 at 12:26 am
O.K. I don’t know about UK law on this despite being from the UK (the actual Child Pornography legislation is too vague) but under U.S. law it could be considered child pornography.
Although there is a very legitimate reason for the “pose” (though obviously it’s not posed, the bottom child just happened to be positioned like that during the belly dancing), it could count as a sexual pose under U.S. law.
However (though this probably wouldn’t matter in the U.S. where they seem to like to stick to the letter of the law rather than common sense), due to the obvious reason for the positioning of the child (they just happened to be like that whilst playing when the photo was taken), it’s NOT actually pornographic – it’s just kids playing and one just happened to be posed in a way that puts focus on her vagina. Fortunately U.K. judges and prosecutors when it comes to things like this seem have some common sense (shame they don’t seem to have any sense in other areas of law though).
December 28th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
[...] girls in the photo was naked with her legs spread. A censored version of the photo can be seen here (probably not safe for [...]
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:12 pm
[...] girls in the photo was naked with her legs spread. A censored version of the photo can be seen here (probably not safe for [...]
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:22 pm
I seem to remember a great deal of upset when a young lady showed a nipple at a football game about a year ago. And yet no comment about the standing girl in the photo showing her nipple. Come on prudes, you are missing out on half the fun. Get busy complaining about the nipple!
January 14th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Art or pornography? That is the question. Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous ‘culture police’ or to take arms against the puritan views or morality…
This photo is of nothing more than two girls innocently playing together, which is clear. Not as clear are the photographer’s intentions or motivations. Does she know her subjects? Are they family friends? Why did she take the photo? I am not familiar with the photographer’s history or other subjects/photos. But I am familiar with subject composition. And this photo does not appear to be suitably composed to suggest it is art. The bright flash has thrown a shadow on the back wall. The background distracts from the subjects… basically it just looks like a hastily taken snapshot a parent would have taken with their Kodak. I don’t consider this to have any intrinsic characteristics of what would normally be considered ‘art’. And simply because the photographer classifies herself as an ‘artist’ (or is even widely considered as such) and sells her work does not make this photograph art. Be that as it may, it’s not pornography either, as I’m sure the photographer had no prurient interest when she took the photo. But it might be considered so by someone viewing it with prurient interests. Why would someone other than the parents of these two girls be interested in this photo anyway? Why would they allow them to be the subject of this composition? One might say that the subject of a piece of art is rarely of any interest to the vast majority of its viewers. And therefore any subject should be considered art within its own objective conceptuality. In other words, this photograph must be considered art. Whether it is ‘artistic’ is another matter.
One should consider this photo a picture of two young girls that only their parent should be interested in. Even if I was familiar with the artist and her work, and I appreciated her aesthetics, composition, subjectivity, or style, I would not be interested in this photo. Anyone who is interested in it is kidding himself (or trying to convince others) that he is an aficionado of the ‘artist’. Or he’s simply a pervert. You be the judge.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
I’m sure if I hunt around in my family photo albums i will find photo’s of me and my little brother running bare arsed across Skegness beach as a nipper.
Who knew they could be “art”
Don’t think it’s porn but do think it’s a crap picture
Ta muchly
January 25th, 2008 at 9:17 am
I see this debate is still on-going.
A notice a few people use the old & well worn excuse:
“What is important is that the image creates an environment for us to talk about concerns we have about images of children”
Well excuse me, but we already know that there are plenty of sick people out there that use & abuse children, take photos & video of them so that they and other like minded perverts can get sexual gratification.
To debate this issue and to raise my concerns I don’t need a so called ‘artist’ taking a photo of two children to get me to think about/debate the problem.
January 29th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
PATCHES, if we start banning things based on what certain mostly-hated members of society (child abusers) may think, we might as well ban virtually everything, or start asking those members of society what they think on important issues and base our laws on that – after all, if we’re going to base whether a photo should be allowed or not on what a child abuser’s view is, then we might as well base everything on their view.
That said, the statement ‘What is important is that the image creates an environment for us to talk about concerns we have about images of children’ is stupid. All such photos do regarding child abuse is to cause people to try to get the photo banned – does, excuse my language, fuck all for a debate on child abuse.
February 9th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
PJ. With respect. Images like this can and do cause hurt/pain/re-emergence of memories that some people have tried to deal with with much suffering. I believe some people that have commented on here say that it harks back to there own abuse as children.
Once again I don’t need images to bring about debate about child/sex abuse. I am a father of a 19 year old daughter and I would have been very angry/suspicious of someone that asked if they could take a photo of my daughter like this.
March 16th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
” Corrected ”
1.Yes, oh yes. The issue is…
The view of some-one else outside of our own small selves!
In this day and age of our innocent children being the sacrifice of the wicked and depraved, shouldn’t we do everything we can to protect them from “Their” wicked, perverted view??? Not Allow or Promote that Perverted View!!!
There is also an-other point that should be noticed…
Due to the uncaring acts of “Nan Goldin and Elton John”…
These little innocent girls are now and forever “Branded” in public view.
These little girls’ innocence swept away for adult gain!
Their names, their faces, their posturing, their bodies now known to the world to be forever associated with this view of them for the rest of their lives! Just like that of that poor little girl “Darren Tuck”!
Why do think most children, who are victims of Crime, names and faces are not made public???
To PROTECT The INNOCENT! “Darren Tuck” needed to be done to receive public help, (but even the police did not post the actual video film itself- only enough to identify her face and age) but these 2 little girls’ results were the choice of “Nan Goldin and Elton John”.
Where is the “Protection” for these little girls?
Look outside of yourself a moment.
Into the real world view.
2.
What does this photograph say? It says look! It says this must be okay because “We are calling it ART”!
We as a caring public need to say NO, Stop!
Even Hugh Heffner uses only consenting adults in his “ART” !
Even to post his pictures publicly – he is required to have public approval and then only with strict rules that must be adhered to by all involved!
Where is the childrens’ approval? -They are not old enough to consent! They are not able to know the effect of this public view of themselves!!! Especially of the long term effect on themselves!!! As I said before…
Yes, oh yes! Look at the responses to realize the true judgment. People who treasure and protect children are appalled and the pedophiles are trying to find the video!
“Nan Goldin and Elton John” did not care about the results of their actions, on These and All Children!
Especially the results on these 2 little girls, and they need to answer for them!
“Nan Goldin and Elton John” put these childrens’ Innocence in Harms Way!
And the Officials that now sit in Judgment of imoral/indecient view!
Would they want their own children seen by the general public, Like This????
This photograph depicts these children in an adult view and that is WRONG and Harmful to These and All Children!
What wicked adult that views this photo – won’t have this image in their minds’ eye when they view other children in public??? Maybe your own child…Maybe your own neighbor…
Would you want own your children “Publicly Viewed Like This?”
3.
The matter of this photograph goes -in reality goes Way Beyond One Individuals’ View!!!
That very protection is what we as a Caring, Responsible Adults are trying to do, by Protesting this and all Subject Matter like this!!!!
Not to allow any child be viewed, even possibly, as a sexual view!!!!
Step outside yourself and look at the public harm this does!!
WHERE would it STOP???
“Live and Let Live” does not work here because it is really a matter of “Live and Let Die”!
4.
Do we as a society turn our heads and just let a Childs‘ innocence die? Maybe just certain children?
Our Duty is to protect the children – who are (as a race of human beings) our only true gift of ourselves – the children who are our next generation of adults!!!!
Do we let them be damaged and sacrificed??? Yes, Damaged and Sacrificed!!!
I Know. I was a child victim. Everyway imaginable.
My siblings at that time were not touched with the same harm but they still suffered, and even tried to protect me (imagine children protecting another child because the adults wouldn’t) because I suffered and they even begged me to take them with me when I fled.
I thought they would be safer when I would no longer be there.
But I was wrong, for when I left, the adults turned on them!
I had escaped but they were still trapped!
So I stopped the adults by reporting them!
I (still a child) had to protect the children because the adults wouldn’t!
5. So I know that this doesn’t stop till some-one stops it!
That very protection is what we as a Caring, Responsible Adults are Supposed to do!
Not just for ourselves, but for all!!!
Here is a Question for you to ponder…
We have Crossing Guards responsible for getting our children safely across the street, not because we as parents haven’t taught them the rules of the child’s own crossing safety but to stop other drivers who may be careless and uncaring of our childs’ safety crossing those streets!
Do we as a parent’s say that I cross my own children, so the Crossing Guards for all children, are not necessary???
March 29th, 2008 at 11:07 am
I don’t find it particularly attractive. I wonder why the police did.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:37 am
==============
# Shayla Said:
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.
==============
Meaning that in creating your population of scapegoats –I mean pedophiles– you are able to convince yourself of your own sanctity, deflect responsibility for your own base instincts elsewhere, and save those charming, sexy –i mean innocent– little girls from their horrible fate.
Well i would call your attitude sanctimonious, and i would not call it harmless.
June 20th, 2008 at 11:59 am
This is disturbing to the public and to the media
kids in these age should never be teached about porn.
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:46 pm
THIS IS REALLY SAD AND THE FATHER IS STUPID TOO
FOR TAKING THIS PICTURE.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Seriously, take that picture off, the one displaying a pedophilic act. That is seriously disturbing.
September 15th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Nan Goldin is one of the greatest female photographers of the century. She shows it as she see’s it. If showing a naked child in an artistic way is porn, surely the thousands of paintings depicting nude children should be considered the same?
Of course some people will use this in the wrong way, as with most things; someone will use it badly.
If nothing else this picture has got people talking and that’s what art is about, creating opinions and challenging society.
In response to:
#261: “I honestly think this photo is stupid! What is Art about it? It figures a GAY person would have a photo like this in their house. Gay people are really f ‘ed up in the head. They always have to do something to put themselves in the spotlight and then if you disagree with them you are considered to be ‘backward’ or ‘not politically correct’. I am so sick of the Rosie and Elton type freaks. Real Art is Van Gogh or Picasso or Monet not this CREEPY photo.”
Art has nothing to do with sexuality of any people concerned (photographer, subject, owner etc) and that point is just as harmful as the photograph. Society has moved on since the artists you mentioned, and of course us artists still pay huge reference to the classics, but the world has changed since paintings of cherubs and Jesus. Get with the times, and get out of your box more often!
January 4th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
well, as far as art, it is not to me, it is a bad photo, and probably should have been tossed. And if it is appropriate or not, I would say it might be ok for the back of the family album, but not for mainstream society. I must also point out, this society is sex everything. I think we need to rethink our conservativeness a bit, but not get carried away at two kids playing.
January 18th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
i am a super open minded person, but this pick goes way to far. there is no creativity at all, no cool lighting, no interesting background, just 2 little girls doing thing that adults do when they bellydance.
bellydancing is an erotic art form for adults,especially if they are nude.
i find this picture upsetting and feel that it shouldnt even be displayed on the internet at all.
For those of you who demand to see it, or think its ok, ask yourself…why do you want to see a child nude.
are there parent, are you a tribal native, or are you just a freak that has no life!
leave the kids alone and take this shit down.
April 4th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Am I being picky to suggest that one of the girls may be belly dancing, but the other is limbo dancing?
And limbo dancuing, when done by big girls, is MEANT to be sexy.
April 9th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Its porn – it is not acceptable.
June 26th, 2009 at 6:10 am
1. i dont think it’s porn, but it is really fucking weird for someone to buy a picture of naked kids.
2. i don’t think this constitites as art, but that’s a matter of opinion, some people think paint randomly splashed on a canvas is art. what assholes.
3. all the people talking shit to the photographers should fuck off, so what if they’re amateurs. and when you ask why you haven’t seen their photos, it’s because there was a major public pms about it, that doesn’t make their photos bad
4. i bet that you (uptight photographer haters) would never in a million years have looked at this photo if it wasn’t in the press
June 26th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
My sister learned belly dancing by watching videos.
So, practice it as you watch videos!
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:35 am
Negative thoughts Life, they may control? Can even say, girls just playing and left to entertain themselves. nothing wrong, just totally free.
October 10th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
====================
# Wendy Says:
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.
====================
well Wendy, i would keep you well away from my kids.
December 22nd, 2009 at 5:21 am
De esta lado del mundo y en este idioma hacen mucha falta estos blogs, muchas gracias por compartir tus conocmientos. danza del vientre Gracias de verdad
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Contrary to some sentiments, good researched articles still bring in readers like me. You presented complete understanding of the matter matter and my opinions are now complete after reading your post. Please hold up the authentic work and i will subscribe to your rss feed to be advised of any potential postings.