• news
  • WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 26 2007 4:00 PM

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:

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.

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 21

Next

Comments
RileyStClair

RileyStClair

Los Angeles, CA
September 2006

SEP 26, 2007 05:42 PM

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



really?
no kids in the bathtub pics for you to show their prom dates someday to embarrass them?

and yeah d20 has it right on the money. i'm fairly certain it's deliberately designed to cause people to think and to debate.

xxxxxxx

xxxxxxx

Canada
September 2005

SEP 26, 2007 05:44 PM

The fact that the issue here is perceived to be what to CALL the photo just shows how insane these sorts of laws are. It shouldn't matter what anyone calls it. All that should matter is whether the children were hurt in some way. The only other thing that should even be a candidate for mattering is whether there is credible evidence that photos like this "activate" latent pedophilia in people who cannot or will not restrain themselves from hurting some other child. The law has no business enforcing aesthetic norms.

Jennifer_

Jennifer_

Venezuela
November 2006

SEP 26, 2007 05:48 PM

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


Oh that made me LOL.

Also, I don't think it's right to sell naked pictures of children (including this one) because they aren't old enough to give consent. When they grow up, they might feel upset, embarassed or taken advantage of. It's not legal, and it's not ethical either.

Bonaparte

Bonaparte

Eugene, OR
September 2006

SEP 26, 2007 05:50 PM

this reminds me of this book i read, the effects of light. it was sort of a shitty book, but it was about the life of one of those "porn or art" kids once she'd grown up

neeeeon

neeeeon

USA
December 2005

SEP 26, 2007 05:55 PM

JunkyardAngel said:
I don't think I would call it porn, but I would call it inappropriate. I have seen many naked kiddie pics, you know--playing in a pool, in a tub, etc. But, you know, a crotch shot of a kid. . .should be kpet private or just torn up, so as not to embarrass the person in later years.

I would not "seize" such a pic, just look and say--well, that's tacky.



+1 exactly

Gringo

Gringo

Spokane, WA
May 2006

SEP 26, 2007 05:55 PM

Jennifer_ said:
It's not legal, and it's not ethical either.


In the United States, a parent or legal guardian has the lawful right to sign any waivers or contracts for their minor.

Jennifer_ said:
It's not legal, and it's not ethical either.


In the United States, we don't have ethics.

Argene

Argene

Pittsburgh, PA
June 2004

SEP 26, 2007 06:04 PM

Bizzare photo, but not porn.

Stiles

Stiles

Philadelphia, PA
November 2002

SEP 26, 2007 06:07 PM

SilverJimmy said:

d20 said:

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.



Exactly! Those that think it is "crappy" because it is boring, low quality, etc, are completely missing how well it has done at getting you involved in this discussion. It forces you to question your beliefs and where you draw your lines, and why. I really think the idea, as d20 stated, is to make you uncomfortable, to force you to ask why seeing a couple of innocent kids playing makes you feel like that. The point is not the craft of the photo but the dialog it forces.



I'd add it is *more* effective as art specifically because it looks like a plain snapshot and not an overtly "artistic" work. Displaying it in a formal gallery setting thus makes the viewer consider the work more closely.

In other words, it's out of context - and why would an otherwise unremarkable family picture of a naked kid playing around suddenly make some viewers uncomfortable, simply because of the changed viewing surroundings?

...and for the poster who said art that needs to be explained isn't good art, all I can say is that understanding the full picture gives the viewer a real understanding . If you don't care enough to figure out the details, you'll miss out on a lot of good work.

Stiles

Stiles

Philadelphia, PA
November 2002

SEP 26, 2007 06:09 PM

TheGringo said:

Jennifer_ said:
It's not legal, and it's not ethical either.


In the United States, a parent or legal guardian has the lawful right to sign any waivers or contracts for their minor.

Jennifer_ said:
It's not legal, and it's not ethical either.


In the United States, we don't have ethics.



This picture was seized by British authorities.

Max16Characters

Max16Characters

Korea, Republic Of
March 2003

SEP 26, 2007 06:12 PM

It's certainly not a picture I would take of my (nonexistent) children. Furthermore, were i to find out that someone was taking pics of my kids that looked like that, there'd be some SERIOUS explaining to do (if not outright clobbering time).

Jennifer_

Jennifer_

Venezuela
November 2006

SEP 26, 2007 06:15 PM

TheGringo said:

Jennifer_ said:
It's not legal, and it's not ethical either.


In the United States, a parent or legal guardian has the lawful right to sign any waivers or contracts for their minor.


That might be true, but they don't have the right to sell pornographic images of their children.

And the BALTIC gallery is in Gateshead, the artist may be American but it's British law that's relevant in whether it can be distributed here.

Formus

Formus

Milwaukee, WI
May 2007

SEP 26, 2007 06:20 PM

Jennifer_ said:
That might be true, but they don't have the right to sell pornographic images of their children.



The parents may have been irresponsible, but it's not pornography.

apesamongus

apesamongus

Atlanta, GA
July 2002

SEP 26, 2007 06:23 PM

SilverJimmyI really think the idea, as d20 stated, is to make you uncomfortable, to force you to ask why seeing a couple of innocent kids playing makes you feel like that.


What if it doesn't make you feel uncomfortable, does it stop being art? The photo is shitty. The decision to display it in a gallery may be art (of the conceptual variety), but that doesn't make the picture itself any good.

Doesn't Jock Sturges get busted for this every decade or so? Someone's pandering to their constituency and making headlines.

Jennifer_

Jennifer_

Venezuela
November 2006

SEP 26, 2007 06:27 PM

Formus said:
The parents may have been irresponsible, but it's not pornography.


It's a naked picture of two children.
Out of interest, what would the picture have to show for you to class it as pornographic?

masterfrederick

masterfrederick

Beaverton, OR
November 2006

SEP 26, 2007 06:35 PM

This reminds me of the Federal Grand Jury case against Jock Sturges, the guy who put out "Radiant Identities." I have the book, and I have to say if you find anything pornographic about the photos in that book there's nothing wrong with the photographer or the subject. There's something wrong with you. The Grand Jury saw it the same way and subsequently threw the case out. They refused to hear it.

This is probably what will happen in this case too if it comes to that. Bottom line: It is not pornography. It IS art however, whether it appeals to you or not. There is nothing wrong with nudity. The photo was clearly not taken with the intent to arouse the viewer. These photos are also taken with the consent of the parents. Jock Sturges' works often INCLUDED the parents in the picture as part of the composition.

David Hamilton is another photographer who published similar works, to include "The Last Day of Summer."

You were able to find BOTH photographers' books in Barnes and Noble, Borders, and other book stores. They weren't kept behind the counter in some seedy liquor store, enveloped in celophane. They were available in the photography section. Because they were works of art.

Hell, the NEA gives grants in the tens of thousands of dollars for works I find FAR more offensive than this.


Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 21

Next