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.

Like some I agree it just looks like two kids playing and horsing around, but a small child naked is a bit rough. The guy isn't taking advantage of a street kid, or some child who is ignored by parents so it;s not like he is a predator.

I'm fully aware that nudity doesn't equal sexuality. However, I can find plenty of opportunities to take pictures of my own children someday, or my current neices or nephews having fun without having to show off their naked crotches to friends and family. Because frankly, I doubt they want to see it, I don't really feel a compelling need to see it myself (as I'm sure I'll see it often enough with diaper changing to have it burned in my brain already), and I don't want to embarrass the fuck out of my kids when they get older, either.

(What i think)
I 'm an mom/ artist /preschool teacher . From an my own artist point of view. i am not seeing anything artistic about this in anyway. As a teacher of young children what the f@@k is the matter with the person that felt the need to display this in a show that sometimes shows sexually explicit works that is a problem and gives mixed emotions and the subject..As a mom i have lots of pictures of my children enjoying there childhood but those are personal pictures that they enjoy in their own little photo albums.

Maybe someone wanted to make people rethink their first impressions and prejudices. Some would say that's what art is all about.

it's neither art, not pornography...

+1

It's just a pic of kids being kids.