NEWS: Kiddie Porn or Boundary Pushing Art?

CULTURE: Kiddie Porn or Boundary Pushing Art?

Is any and every photo of a naked kid pornography? How do you determine what's boundary-pushing art, and what's just plain sleaze? A photo from Nan Goldin's "Thanksgiving" installation, currently at the BALTIC Centre for Contemporary Art, has been seized by authorities on accusations of indecency. From their site:

Now, police in northeast England are "trying to assess" whether the photo--which has been exhibited many times previously, at major art shows--qualifies as pornography and if "an offense had been committed." The photograph, called "Klara and Edda Belly Dancing," was published in the Phaidon monograph of Goldin's works titled The Devil's Playground, and has been exhibited in Houston, London, Madrid, New York, Portugal, Warsaw and Zurich without issue.

So, is it pornography or not? You be the judge:


Photo Location *photo blurred by host site.

Ah, the age old question of art vs. porn. This reminds me of the scrutiny that came upon Jock Sturges and Sally Mann a few years ago.

My problem is that I don't feel that it'sGOOD art.

The only thing disturbing about this photo is the fact that someone out there is calling it pornography. I don't want to meet that person.

*shudder*

This seems like one of those situations where if you consider it "pornography" it says a lot more about you than it does about the photo.

That's not porn, though it's not professionally done either. It's just odd. Just looks like a picture a grandmother would take of her grandkids playing around.

If it is art, which people keep insisting it is, this question is worth pondering: how many of the models for the great nude masterpieces were underage? Quite a few, I'm willing to wager. So.

There doesn't really seem to be anything overtly sexual about it. Although I'm sure there are guys who go to the Louvre and pop boners all over.

Well said.

Whether or not it's porn is irrelevant - it's silly. Who would want to see this in an art gallery? Art like this is completely wasted on the likes of me.

+1

One thing that can definitively be determined in all this is that Elton John is really weird.

Yep. Twats. A kid with someone's dick up their arse is porn. This isn't it.

I don't really get how an image of kids not doing something sexual can qualify as porn, and I doubt it would be such a big question if the artist was not known for "sexually explicit work." Every time I hear of a 'baby in the bath' shot being reported to police by photo developers, I wonder if the cops look at the bloody thing before making an arrest. Going through the effort is a waste of time, money and paperwork. Mostly paperwork.

Maybe I don't link nudity with sex as much as other people, I don't know.

what I see here is 2 young children that do not seem to be concerned with thier own nudity or sexuality, but rather just having fun playing. the pure innocents of childhood.......it is the people that try to steal thier innocents for their own personal pleasure that makes it porn.

i'd actually say the opposite. i think it's fantastic not because of the photo itself, but because it absolutely nails the viewer with the uncomfortable issue that we're talking about in this thread.

i agree with the posts in this thread that seeing a naked child as porn says more about the person asserting that -- and the culture they live in -- than the picture itself. i'm willing to bet that's why the photo was exhibited in the first place.

It certainly isn't a photo I'd take of my kids (if I had any), nor would I be showing it off, either. Frankly, I don't really find naked child crotch artistic, really.

Maybe it's not outright child porn, but I can certainly see why it would make people uncomfortable, too.

that is fucking horrible

If the photographer took it and is trying to pass it off as art it probably is something negative. If it has any other intended use besides normal at-home photo albums then it is VERY questionable.

Word.

I don't get the point of anything Goldin does. Her work is like snapshots. I see better shit everyday randomly of Flickr. And I went to school for photo, and my teacher had a whole blah blah why it's great. If you have to explain why it's good, it's not that good.

And the porn thing is bullshit. Calling this shit "porn" hugely downplays what kiddie porn is, which is adults molesting or raping children. That's a big fuckin leap. Just cause some sickos might jerk off to it doesn't mean anything. I mean the Delia's catalog is still legal, right?

Exactly. Kind of reminds me of what Kurt Cobain said about the Nevermind album cover

Why not? Parents take pictures of their kids having fun all the time. Parents take pictures of their kids taking baths, swimming in the backyard pool, etc. Pictures are a very spur-of-the-moment type thing, and you'd not think sexually about your own kids being naked, which to me is the definition of pornography - if it is intended to be sexual, then it's porn. (Sensuality, for the record, is not in these instances sexuality.) Nudity is not necessarily sexual.

But the reactions to this attempt to make it sexual. Which is an odd unintented consequence - accusing it of being sexual, even if it's not, makes it sexual in the eyes of some viewers, and goads on the sexual perversions of a lot of people, some of whom wouldn't view it that way in the first place.

It's a couple kids playing. It's not a particularly "artistic" photograph (I know that's subjective, but it seems too low quality, too much like a quick family snapshot), but that certainly doesn't make it pornographic. As many have said, it's the viewer who makes it so.

it certainly is weird. as a father of a two year old, i'm inclined to say that this piece crosses the line

bizoptly.