Advertisement

loader

Talk

Advanced search

Nan Goldin's 'Art' Photography of her daughters

(348 Posts)
NadineBaggott Thu 27-Sep-07 22:25:26

has been removed from an exhibition in Newcastle and is now in the hands of the police.

It depicts her daughters playing - one standing clothed astride her naked sister on the floor, leg akimbo facing the camera.

Comment on BBC news just now 'what parent allows their child's genitals to be depicted as art?'

I have a certain sympathy with that.

What do you think?

Heathcliffscathy Thu 27-Sep-07 22:26:22

no sympathy at all i'm afraid.

paedophile hysteria run amok imo.

hunkermunker Thu 27-Sep-07 22:26:49

In the hands of the POLICE?!

Wtf?!

purpleturtle Thu 27-Sep-07 22:27:19

But you couldn't see genitals: you could see children playing. Seems something of an overreaction to me.

LittleBella Thu 27-Sep-07 22:28:05

Without seeing the pictures, wouldn't know.

Maybe the genitals weren't the main point of the picture. Just an incidental part of the little girls playing.

Or maybe they were the whole part, in which case I agree it's off. Don't know though.

Apparantly these pictures have been published in books. Heard a report about them this morning.

nell12 Thu 27-Sep-07 22:28:12

I agree. Art has its place, but in the days when I am dubious about my childrens faces being published on the internet for fear of vile people getting hold of them, I am aghast that any parent would want this for their daughter

margoandjerry Thu 27-Sep-07 22:29:05

I would normally say what a load of rubbish but I just saw part of the picture and it does seem a bit much. A young child's genitals splayed towards the camera?

I never get into paedophile hysteria but in this case I thought it was a bit disrespectful of the child just generally, without any paedophilia aspects.

Heathcliffscathy Thu 27-Sep-07 22:29:14

JESUS CHRIST.

children naked. childrens' genitals ARE NOT PORNOGRAPHY.

FOR F*CKS SAKE.

kitsandbits Thu 27-Sep-07 22:29:39

no, no, no

bad

Heathcliffscathy Thu 27-Sep-07 22:30:29

vaginas vulvas are not offensive. are they????

margoandjerry Thu 27-Sep-07 22:30:43

no but Sophable, have you seen the pic? It's at rather an unfortunate angle. It was on the bbc, half blacked out so you couldn't really tell but it did look a bit much.

Let's put it this way, if you were a nude model in a life class, you wouldn't fancy posing this way...

nell12 Thu 27-Sep-07 22:31:14

Not to paint to fine a picture;
it is of 2 hirls playing. One girl is standing astride of another girl who is lying on the floor.

The girl lying down is naked with her legs apart and feet facing the camera

Why is this art??

(Just FYI, I have an MA (Hons) in Art History so I am not some cosseted fool without an idea)

NadineBaggott Thu 27-Sep-07 22:31:41

According to the BBC, the original picture shows the genitals in clear view, they've just not shown the full picture on tv.

Forget the paedophiles would you have a picture of your child in that pose on display in an exhibition?

I wouldn't. For one thing I don't think I should be making a decision like that for my child.

margoandjerry Thu 27-Sep-07 22:31:46

call me old fashioned, but there are very few people in the world who have seen my vulva! Vulva is more than nudity, I'd say.

hunkermunker Thu 27-Sep-07 22:31:47

Picture on this thread here

hunkermunker Thu 27-Sep-07 22:32:38

And I don't think it's porn - just a photo that she knew would provoke a reaction.

margoandjerry Thu 27-Sep-07 22:33:49

OK have now seen the full photo. Is not quite as bad as it could have been but is not necessary, is not respectful and is not art.

kitsandbits Thu 27-Sep-07 22:33:59

No

its not porn ... not to normal people

but to some sick fucks it is

and i wouldn't want my daughter bits published for someone likr THAT to get hold of!!

NadineBaggott Thu 27-Sep-07 22:34:12

I think that's spot on hunker - BUT getting a 'reaction' with your own child?

bizarre imho

Heathcliffscathy Thu 27-Sep-07 22:34:21

these are two little girls playing/dancing.

I find the inference that this picture (and i have seen it thanks for link hunker) pornographic deeply deeply suspect.

nudity is NOT sexual. the pose is not sexual.

Carmenere Thu 27-Sep-07 22:34:31

I don't think it is a particularly beautiful image. It is challenging so I suppose has some significance but I think that it is unfair to use an intimate picture of a child to make art.

margoandjerry Thu 27-Sep-07 22:34:54

I also wouldn't take this pic for my own family album. Sorry but why would you bother? Unless you are just trying to start some tedious debate about art.

LittleBella Thu 27-Sep-07 22:35:17

It doesn't look like art to me, just a funny little private family picture.

I don't think there's anything wrong with it tbh. I probably wouldn't publish a photo of my DD like that, but only because I know I'd be stoned in peado-hysteria, rather than because there's anything wrong with it. Plus it would be so talked aobut that it might embarrass her at school.

It should not be a police matter. There are better things for them to spend their resources on.

Heathcliffscathy Thu 27-Sep-07 22:35:30

but she is a documentary photographer. these are her children. they are having fun. evidently.

what on earth is wrong with the world that there is anything at all wrong with that?

NadineBaggott Thu 27-Sep-07 22:36:04

I don't think its pornographic either I just wonder why you would exhibit your child's genitals in the name of art?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now