• news
  • WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 26 2007 4:00 PM

Kiddie Porn or Boundary Pushing Art?

Submitted by Rahodeb

Edited by Rahodeb

Tags: Nan Goldin Child Pornography Thought Police



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.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 21

Next

Comments
apesamongus

apesamongus

Atlanta, GA
July 2002

SEP 26, 2007 06:37 PM

Jennifer_ said:

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?


Sexuality in some form would probably be a good start.

cowboybert

cowboybert

West Palm Beach, FL
September 2006

SEP 26, 2007 06:39 PM

TheGringo said:

Horrorflick said:
I'm not sure what makes this art. I don't think it's pornography by any stretch of the imagination...


The next time I visit my mom, I am going to ask her to see our old photo book, cross out the word "FAMILY ALBUM" and replace it with "ART BOOK."

It should increase its value considerably.



I wouldn't include that one of you swinging from the horse pecker

Formus

Formus

Milwaukee, WI
May 2007

SEP 26, 2007 06:43 PM

Jennifer_ said:

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?



This has no sexual intent behind it. If the photographer intended it to be sexual, then it is pornographic. Otherwise every picture any parent took of their nude children would be pornographic. And furthermore, every nude painting that hangs in any art gallery would also be pornographic. And they're not.

As it's been said, it says something about the viewer if they think what they're seeing is sexual in any way.

orangeAsaurusRex

orangeAsaurusRex

York, ON
January 2005

SEP 26, 2007 06:53 PM

Art is in the beholder... to me.. that is not art... it looks like a family photo (bizarre family at that).

I don't think it needs to be seized.. but I don't think the photo should be publicized. I'm also assuming the censor white marks are not in the original.

However,
I am of the camp that I don't want kid touchers having fuel for their perverse fires.

After a quick google search on nan goldin, you can see his other works. When that picture is put into context with his other pieces, then it makes sense and is not porn. However, I am curious if that picture is staged or candid. If it's candid, I say art. If its staged... porn.

Disregard me tongue

Jennifer_

Jennifer_

Venezuela
November 2006

SEP 26, 2007 06:56 PM

apesamongus said:

Jennifer_ said:

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?


Sexuality in some form would probably be a good start.


Good point, it's not like they're straddling each other whilst naked or anything.

Oh, wait.

Seriously, though; do you think that people should be allowed to sell naked images of children, as long as they're not doing anything other than simply being naked?

Formus said:
This has no sexual intent behind it. If the photographer intended it to be sexual, then it is pornographic.


I think the photographer did have a sexual intent - it seems as if she was wanting to explore issues of sexuality and childhood. I could be wrong, though.

Otherwise every picture any parent took of their nude children would be pornographic.


And if parents started selling every nude picture they took of their children for mass distribution, I'd have a problem with that too.

As it's been said, it says something about the viewer if they think what they're seeing is sexual in any way.


Not really. All it says is that they think it's a violation of the child's rights to display naked photographs of them while they are under the age of consent.

SilverJimmy

SilverJimmy

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

SEP 26, 2007 06:57 PM

apesamongus said:

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.



I am not trying to say the quality of the photo is good, I was only trying to convey that the quality of the photo being "shitty" is not relevant beyond the fact that it was likely done intentionally (as pointed out by Stiles) to draw the viewer into the desired internal dialog. The dialog is the point. And if it fails to do that for you and you cannot see that concept in it, then that is unfortunate for you. If it fails to do that for everyone, then I might agree that it is bad art (though, I'd still want to see it in person rather than a 400 x 583 jpg before condemning it as "shitty"). However, this is clearly not the case with this piece, given that it has confiscated as porn and all.

masterfrederick

masterfrederick

Beaverton, OR
November 2006

SEP 26, 2007 07:02 PM

SilverJimmy said:

apesamongus said:

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.



I am not trying to say the quality of the photo is good, I was only trying to convey that the quality of the photo being "shitty" is not relevant beyond the fact that it was likely done intentionally (as pointed out by Stiles) to draw the viewer into the desired internal dialog. The dialog is the point. And if it fails to do that for you and you cannot see that concept in it, then that is unfortunate for you. If it fails to do that for everyone, then I might agree that it is bad art (though, I'd still want to see it in person rather than a 400 x 583 jpg before condemning it as "shitty"). However, this is clearly not the case with this piece, given that it has confiscated as porn and all.



Good points, SilverJimmy, all around.

The FBI confiscated thousands of Jock Sturges' photographs as well, and in the end, they had to give them ALL back-- with a smile and an apology. I predict this will be the case with this work as well.

MarcyBeth

MarcyBeth

Ocala, FL
July 2006

SEP 26, 2007 07:02 PM

i think the fact there is an open kid cooch shot aimed directly at the lens of the camera might be some of the issue.

masterfrederick

masterfrederick

Beaverton, OR
November 2006

SEP 26, 2007 07:04 PM

lithocarpus said:

bigorangemachine said:
... his other works...



HER work. Nan Goldin is a woman. Just wanted to clear that up as many in this thread are not familiar with her or her work, apparently.



From what little I have heard of her, she seems to have a knack for addressing social issues. I think I'd like her.

apesamongus

apesamongus

Atlanta, GA
July 2002

SEP 26, 2007 07:08 PM

Jennifer_ said:
Seriously, though; do you think that people should be allowed to sell naked images of children, as long as they're not doing anything other than simply being naked?


Yea. Why shouldn't they be able to? Being naked in neither unusual or dangerous.

Formus

Formus

Milwaukee, WI
May 2007

SEP 26, 2007 07:11 PM

Jennifer_
I think the photographer did have a sexual intent - it seems as if she was wanting to explore issues of sexuality and childhood. I could be wrong, though.



There is no sexual contact whatsoever between the girls. None. The artist has provided us with an ambiguous image, and watched while we grapple with what we see, trying to assign some morality to an image whose impetus and origin we do not know. They're naked. Okay..........so every movie ever that has nudity in it is suddenly porn? They're just kids having fun, and the artist has caught them in a situation with no sexual subtext whatsoever. They're playing, having fun, being kids. If, to you, there's something sexual about that, then I suggest you reassess what you consider to be "moral." Because to 90% of the other people viewing this image, there is absolutely nothing pornographic about it. At all.

That's the entire point of the piece. And it's worked to perfection.

And if parents started selling every nude picture they took of their children for mass distribution, I'd have a problem with that too.



I already said it was irresponsible. But the fact that they sold it as art and not pornography speaks volumes.

As it's been said, it says something about the viewer if they think what they're seeing is sexual in any way.



Not really. All it says is that they think it's a violation of the child's rights to display naked photographs of them while they are under the age of consent.



But what does that have to do with sexuality? Jesus Christ. Nudity is not necessarily sexual.

Syntropia

Syntropia

Oakland, CA
February 2004

SEP 26, 2007 07:11 PM

Definately an intentional provocation, but by no means porn. I'd say it calls into question how deeply connected people are with their own sense of sexuality as opposed to floundering around in the murkey waters of the societal stereotypes that confuse such things and lead people to see perversion rather than innocence in an obviously playful yet unabashed image of childhood.

Formus

Formus

Milwaukee, WI
May 2007

SEP 26, 2007 07:16 PM

lithocarpus said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Stiles said:

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.



I hate to jump on the bandwagon, but...I think these posts hit the nail on the head.

Goldin often utilizes a snapshot, family photo "look" in her work. This is not an accident or evidence of a lack of technical ability on her part; rather, it's a result of attempting to create images that capture an un-staged moment, lending them a casual authenticity. She often shoots with existing light, even when that creates a blurred image due to longer exposure times.

Her work is meant to be provocative, politically and culturally charged. The discussion in this thread provides ample evidence of just how effectively she can achieve that.

Is it art? Is it good art? Irrelevant. I suspect that Goldin isn't entirely surprised by the reactions to her work in England. While it is disappointing to see it taken so far, it is also thrilling that a humble little photograph is being taken as a serious challenge and that it is stimulating this debate.

Score one for Art.



Bingo.

Gringo

Gringo

Spokane, WA
May 2006

SEP 26, 2007 07:19 PM

Stiles said:

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.


But I'm 'Merican. I assume everything revolves around life in the United States.

Jennifer_

Jennifer_

Venezuela
November 2006

SEP 26, 2007 07:20 PM

Formus said:
They're just kids having fun, and the artist has caught them in a situation with no sexual subtext whatsoever. They're playing, having fun, being kids. If, to you, there's something sexual about that, then I suggest you reassess what you consider to be "moral." Because to 90% of the other people viewing this image, there is absolutely nothing pornographic about it. At all.


That's great that the majority of the population do not find this picture sexual. However, some people are paedophiles that enjoy seeing naked pictures of children, which is why we don't allow them to be sold or mass distributed.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 21

Next

featured interviews