Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Nan Goldin's 'Art' Photography of her daughters

347 replies

NadineBaggott · 27/09/2007 22:25

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?

OP posts:
Heathcliffscathy · 27/09/2007 22:26

no sympathy at all i'm afraid.

paedophile hysteria run amok imo.

hunkermunker · 27/09/2007 22:26

In the hands of the POLICE?!

Wtf?!

purpleturtle · 27/09/2007 22:27

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

LittleBella · 27/09/2007 22:28

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 · 27/09/2007 22:28

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 · 27/09/2007 22:29

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 · 27/09/2007 22:29

JESUS CHRIST.

children naked. childrens' genitals ARE NOT PORNOGRAPHY.

FOR F*CKS SAKE.

kitsandbits · 27/09/2007 22:29

no, no, no

bad

Heathcliffscathy · 27/09/2007 22:30

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

margoandjerry · 27/09/2007 22:30

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 · 27/09/2007 22:31

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)

Original poster
NadineBaggott · 27/09/2007 22:31

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.

OP posts:
margoandjerry · 27/09/2007 22:31

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 · 27/09/2007 22:31

Picture on this thread here

hunkermunker · 27/09/2007 22:32

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

margoandjerry · 27/09/2007 22:33

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 · 27/09/2007 22:33

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!!

Original poster
NadineBaggott · 27/09/2007 22:34

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

bizarre imho

OP posts:
Heathcliffscathy · 27/09/2007 22:34

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 · 27/09/2007 22:34

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 · 27/09/2007 22:34

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 · 27/09/2007 22:35

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 · 27/09/2007 22:35

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?

Original poster
NadineBaggott · 27/09/2007 22:36

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

OP posts:
hunkermunker · 27/09/2007 22:36

I googled to find it and saw some of her other work while looking. She's clearly got a different take on the world.

And I agree, nudity's not porn.