• 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 ... 

6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10

 ... 21

Next

Comments
JunkyardAngel

JunkyardAngel

San Gabriel, CA
February 2006

SEP 26, 2007 08:11 PM

Formus said:
Now we've delved into a discussion of morality. And any scholarly discussion of morality boils down to this: it is subjective.

If it boils down to morality, which this has, it automatically gets the benefit of the doubt, in any unbiased decision. It's the exact same reason abortion is legal.



This I agree with, which is why I repeatedly say "Illegal, no, but not nec. right" while I am expressing my *opinion*.


SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Godamnit.

biggrin

Stiles

Stiles

Philadelphia, PA
November 2002

SEP 26, 2007 08:12 PM

JunkyardAngel said:

Stiles said:

Jennifer_ said:

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.



No shit? Let's ban National Geographic because some 13 year old kid might wank to a bare-breasted native! Can't have them corrupting our nation's youth!



I hope you really don't think that these two scenarios are in any way related??



She's making a blanket statement saying all pictures of naked children (including, presumably, pictured of African natives) should not be distributed because someone, somewhere, might be aroused by them.

Understand now?

Grace

Grace

SUICIDEGIRL

Alaska, USA

SEP 26, 2007 08:14 PM

The artist isn't putting this out there to sell it, he's doing it firstly for the sake of art. Pornographers are out to sell and that's it.

Art is supposed to evoke a response in people. This image is obviously making a lot of you feel uncomfortable or grossed out and that's the ENTIRE point. I'm sorry if people have ridiculous body image problems and can't handle nudity, but it's a kid! Next we'll be saying that changing a baby's diaper is molestation.

And say a real pedophile is wacking off to it. It's a hell of a lot better than going out and hurting a real child. Let's concern ourselves with ACTUAL child molestation cases instead of letting the courts play cultural watchdog.

JunkyardAngel

JunkyardAngel

San Gabriel, CA
February 2006

SEP 26, 2007 08:15 PM

Formus said:

JunkyardAngel said:
just because something is legal doesn't make it right.



Which is the most flawed argument that exists in the world today. Because if it's legal, then obviously your perceptions of "right and wrong" are irrelevant to it.



You say???

If it is legal or NOT legal, my perception is still that: my perception; my opinion. My opinion does not change legality and legality does not change my opinion. But I think I already said that pretty clearly.




Syntropia

Syntropia

Oakland, CA
February 2004

SEP 26, 2007 08:16 PM


lithocarpus said:
I think that it also may have something do to do with the implied role or position of the viewer in relationship to the children being depicted. It is uncomfortable for many people to look at precisely because it raises, rather forcefully, the questions being posed in this thread.



Precisely why this IS art...

Formus

Formus

Milwaukee, WI
May 2007

SEP 26, 2007 08:17 PM

Grace said:
And say a real pedophile is wacking off to it. It's a hell of a lot better than going out and hurting a real child. Let's concern ourselves with ACTUAL child molestation cases instead of letting the courts play cultural watchdog.



Kaboom!

ScottSmallin

ScottSmallin

Myrtle Beach, SC
January 2004

SEP 26, 2007 08:23 PM

I don;t think it is the photograph that makes it pornography. It is the viewer. If some dude or lady gets turned on by that photo then they have made it pornography not the artist. IN which case the viewer should get some counceling. Is a picture of a dog's ass pornography????? well, that depends on the viewer now doesn;t it??

Syntropia

Syntropia

Oakland, CA
February 2004

SEP 26, 2007 08:30 PM

If Art carries a lot of baggage, does that make artists 'baggage handlers'? biggrin

chaoslex

chaoslex

Halifax, NS
March 2006

SEP 26, 2007 08:38 PM

Well to me its not Pornography Nor is it Art. Its a 35mm shot.

Tart

Tart

SUICIDEGIRL

New York, USA

SEP 26, 2007 08:39 PM

i know that for me, i never wore pants as a kid. or now. but as a child, i had to be chased around and dressed on a daily basis. foreshadowing for my naked on the internet escapades??? maybe.

and as far as the photo making people uncomfortable, good. i hope it did. pushing the envelope is what art is about, is it not?

DCruz

DCruz

Montreal-nord, QC
November 2006

SEP 26, 2007 08:41 PM

porn ? nope... the poses do remind me of poses sometimes adopted by porn people but that pic, it's just kids having silly innocent fun like we all had when we were kids. I'm not sure it's art either... I can hardly find something that makes it artistic...

apesamongus

apesamongus

Atlanta, GA
July 2002

SEP 26, 2007 08:43 PM

Jennifer_ said:

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.


Actually, that has nothing to do with why we (at least in America) don't allow them to be distributed.

ChrisGray

ChrisGray

Birmingham, AL
March 2007

SEP 26, 2007 08:48 PM

I don't know if it's art or porn, but I do know that if this pic had been shot by someone in a trailer park in Arkansas and not by the celebrated Nan Goldin that the police wouldn't be spending much time "to assess whether or not an offense had been committed..."

I think Tierney Gearon's pics of her children are "better" from a photographic standpoint, but probably no less disturbing to some viewers.

testykitten

testykitten

Andorra
February 2005

SEP 26, 2007 08:49 PM

while i'm not at all offended by the photo, i am offended by people referring to it as a "cooch shot." not being able to view the human body in any form without pornographic terminology and references is your problem, not nan goldin's, sally mann's, or anyone else's.

sally mann...

zoom image

stephenshrugged2

stephenshrugged2

Warren, MI
July 2007

SEP 26, 2007 08:57 PM

I agree, most of the dispute is best observed by our definitions of what we deem both art and porn. And also the context in which the picture itself has been taken. Clearly not taken for the purpose of kiddy porn, so i suppose in terms of legality there's no clear intent. As for it being art or not, that discussion could go on forever. But

I happen to have Nan's book, "Ballad of Sexual Dependency", and most of the pictures kindof run like glorified family photos. I suppose if you see art as, "things you would display, or hang on your wall", then i don't think its in that category. She certainly has a knack for capturing moments in time around her. And there is an art to that..

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10

 ... 21

Next

featured interviews