Lifestyle

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

108 | 109 | 110

 ... 954

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 13

Next

Rahodeb

Rahodeb

Los Angeles, CA
March 2006

SEP 26, 2007 01:38 PM



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:

BALTIC presents work by American artist Nan Goldin from The Sir Elton John Photography Collection. Thanksgiving is a micro-retrospective installation of photographs documenting the artist’s life from 1973 to 1999. The installation immerses us in Goldin’s world, recording friends and lovers and her own intimate history

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.

[Elton] John purchased the "Thanksgiving" installation in 1999, his statement said.

Goldin's frank and often sexually explicit work has drawn critical acclaim, as well as police attention.


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


Photo Location *photo blurred by host site.

Nic

Nic

SUICIDEGIRL

United Kingdom

SEP 26, 2007 04:08 PM

No. Thats kids being twats.

Ellyson

Ellyson

Norfolk, VA
June 2006

SEP 26, 2007 04:11 PM

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.

mattbavougian

mattbavougian

Lincoln, NE
June 2003

SEP 26, 2007 04:11 PM

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

clovesbud

clovesbud

Los Angeles, CA
September 2002

SEP 26, 2007 04:11 PM

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*

Morgan

Morgan

SUICIDEGIRL

Illinois, USA

SEP 26, 2007 04:11 PM

I dunno if it's porn but I do know it's stupid. It looks like a gorram kiddie-sized American Apparel ad.

Ridley

Ridley

SUICIDEGIRL

California, USA

SEP 26, 2007 04:12 PM

I would say what makes me uncomfortable is probably kiddie porn.

That being said, this looks like the average photo a parent would have of any of their kids. Some kids don't like to wear clothes. Kids also don't have a stigma over clothes.

To me this looks like two kids at play, having a grand old time dancing around.

If you were to raid any parents picture collection I'm sure you would come up with many like it.

Putting it on display seems to be the controversy. These are not my kids, so is it ok to look at this picture? Is it ok even it were just a snapshot of life?

I personally think it is ok to display. But I can see the other side's argument. I am not prepared to debate it really.

I would at least hope that the subjects of this photograph are ok with themselves being represented in this way.


And I don't really thing this is a good piece of art. It seems like too common a picture. But that's a whole other debate.

mingol

mingol

Singapore
July 2005

SEP 26, 2007 04:13 PM

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.

Formus

Formus

Milwaukee, WI
May 2007

SEP 26, 2007 04:14 PM

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.

Jace

Jace

San Francisco, CA
February 2004

SEP 26, 2007 04:15 PM

mingol said:
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.



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.

semiretiredpunk

semiretiredpunk

USA
March 2007

SEP 26, 2007 04:18 PM

mingol said:
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.



+1

Formus

Formus

Milwaukee, WI
May 2007

SEP 26, 2007 04:18 PM

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

Trahern

Trahern

United Kingdom
March 2003

SEP 26, 2007 04:20 PM

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.

leftyhitter

leftyhitter

I'm lost
May 2004

SEP 26, 2007 04:21 PM

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.

d20

d20

San Francisco, CA
September 2003

SEP 26, 2007 04:23 PM

creativename said:
I would say what makes me uncomfortable is probably kiddie 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.

Gillionaire

Gillionaire

Manchester, NH
February 2007

SEP 26, 2007 04:25 PM

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.

bairdduvessa

bairdduvessa

Centerville, MA
April 2005

SEP 26, 2007 04:27 PM

that is fucking horrible

l0vetrain

l0vetrain

Portland, OR
April 2007

SEP 26, 2007 04:29 PM

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.

Markus001

Markus001

United Kingdom
November 2004

SEP 26, 2007 04:31 PM

Nic said:
No. Thats kids being twats.



Word.

SouGei

SouGei

Blackwood, NJ
January 2007

SEP 26, 2007 04:31 PM

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?

DeadBilly

DeadBilly

Burnt Cabins, PA
February 2004

SEP 26, 2007 04:32 PM

mingol said:
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.



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

Cobain made it clear that the only compromise he would accept was a sticker covering the penis that would say "If you're offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile."


Formus

Formus

Milwaukee, WI
May 2007

SEP 26, 2007 04:33 PM

Gillionaire said:
It certainly isn't a photo I'd take of my kids (if I had any)



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.

starblood

starblood

Horsham, PA
March 2006

SEP 26, 2007 04:33 PM

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.

theconservative

theconservative

Spring, TX
October 2004

SEP 26, 2007 04:35 PM

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

MrCrisp

MrCrisp

I'm lost
August 2004

SEP 26, 2007 04:35 PM

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



bizoptly.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 13

Next