Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
Flamesparrow · 28/09/2007 12:43

Ok, not read the whole thread... I don't like the picture, but more because I don't particularly want a photo of anyone's genitals (and because it is just a cr*p picture)

I also don't like children being photographed/filmed naked for the world to see - they have no say in the matter.

morethanmum · 28/09/2007 12:47

This isn't a child running around naked, knees, elbows etc flashing past, it's achild with her legs splayed and her vulva on display. It's also a still, not just an afternoon of the kids naked in the paddling pool. I just think it's a cr*p photo that's only attracting attention because it's contentious.

Carmenere · 28/09/2007 12:47

But Ruty that is what I am saying. If my dd was running around naked in the garden on a sunny day and there were people around it wouldn't bother me at all. However if she struck that particular pose in that picture in front of our guests I would tell her to close her legs quick smart as her vulva is private.

princessmel · 28/09/2007 12:49

Who are the children in the picture? Are they her children?

I wouldn't want a picture of my child like that in an exhibition. I know they are dancing and playing , that is obvious, but its not fair on the little girl who's naked. And you don't know what people could do eith that image

There must have been loads of other pictures she could use to show children dancing. Why pick the one with her vulva on full show.

And on the link it says that some of the other pictures are somewhat sexual. Including a man holding his penis in one.

Its not necessary and I feel sorry for the girl.

I have pics of my own children naked, taken in the bath or whatever but not like that and not for public use.

themildmanneredjanitor · 28/09/2007 12:49

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

kitsandbits · 28/09/2007 12:49

exactly carmenere,

and if someone was to take a pic of her whilst doing that... then millions of people were to see, you would be horrified, as i expect any other mum to be!!

Nakedness if fine, a little accidental flash isnt going to do any harm, but a picture blown up to god knows what size apearing in the paper, TV ect isnt going to do that child anygood!

themildmanneredjanitor · 28/09/2007 12:52

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

princessmel · 28/09/2007 12:52

Ok just seen that they are her daughters. its in the thread title. Duh!

Yes my pics are FAB!! I should exhibt them.

ruty · 28/09/2007 13:00

I don't think there is any point in discussing it any more. Any points i would like to make have already been made by sophable, MP, Blu, et al. I don't think the photo is sexual in the least. And i do think that some of your attitudes are worrying. Sorry.

ruty · 28/09/2007 13:03

not worrying in personal terms, but in social terms of how society now views children.

Lorayn · 28/09/2007 13:04

I think the picture is taken at a questionable angle, I dont want to see my daughters bits, so I dont want to see anyone elses, I have pictures of my children naked, and would happily share them with friends/family etc, but not one has ever been taken with such a full on view of either childs genitalia.

Of course it is innocent in the eyes of the child, but that picture could so easily be touched up to make it look like it was an adult straddled over the naked child. Child pornography, no matter how it is made, incourages padeophiles, and as such should not be available.

As for the police getting involved, that is just ridiculous, a case of 'we don't find this picture appropriate' would have sufficed.

Carmenere · 28/09/2007 13:06

I'm not even slightly worried about my attitude ruty, thanks. < at the novelty of being patronised on mn>

I don't think that the picture is sexual but I do think that it is exploitative and that it is wrong to use children to make some kind of sensationalist artistic point. I actually agree with a lot of what Blu and Sophable said but I do object to being told I am sexualising a picture because I have a different viewpoint from you.

Beenleigh · 28/09/2007 13:12

It's not porn, but I would not allow a picture of one of my daughters in a similar pose to be publicly viewed. Also it is a very intimate picture for which the child involved can not realistically be expected to give informed consent for its public viewing of publication. I suppose the key here is the intention, and obviously Nan Goldin's intention was not in any way dubvious.

TheQueenOfQuotes · 28/09/2007 13:16

"I think it is disgusting, i read in the times that Elton John owns that particular peice of "Art"."

And there's a problem with an gay man owning it??? I personally can't see Elton John getting overly exited about a picture of 2 girls (or even 2 women) doing anything .

And no I don't have a problem with the photo.

ruty · 28/09/2007 13:18

soor Carmenere didn't mean to offend!

ruty · 28/09/2007 13:18

i mean sorry!

Carmenere · 28/09/2007 13:19

Oh don't worry ruty, I am a tad grumpy today

ruty · 28/09/2007 13:20

it is a tricky issue

BroccoliSpears · 28/09/2007 13:26

I think it's a lovely photo of two little girls having fun. Made me smile.

IMO though it should have remained a private family photo.

DP has some gorgeous photos of me and LO in the bath - they are fab pictures, but they are private family photos, and I won't be showing them to the neighbours or offering them up for public exhubition.

Anna8888 · 28/09/2007 13:31

Not worth fussing about.

Last year we had a portrait done of our daughter naked.

pixelchick · 28/09/2007 13:39

The fact is the police have taken it away because they want to check whether an offence has been committed. Our views and values are one thing, but the law is the law and the laws are there for a reason.

Looking at her other work puts the photo in context. She uses ideas about vulnerability and self-abuse / addiction and makes a valid point. But there is a point when you have to decide whether her artistic ideas are exploitation. I don't think it is because she sees herself as one of the exploited (being an ex-heroin addict herself).

The objection I have to this picture is that the act of publishing it is a denial of the child's rights.

jazzyp · 28/09/2007 14:00

Tis a tricky one. I think there's nothing wrong with it as a private photo, but I would never make something like that of my daughter public.

I don't think it's art, it's a really rather crappy family photo. I wouldn't pay to own it or see it on display.

I do think the debate needs to take place though, as unfortunately we live in a world where some people would get off on this photo and that is gross.

kitsandbits · 28/09/2007 14:03

Looking at her other work puts the photo in context. She uses ideas about vulnerability and self-abuse / addiction and makes a valid point.

so where does childrens inncent play come in to her work?

is that piece solely about the fact you can see a childs vulva?

becauseif it is all innocent i dont see how that fits into her work.

Her other pieces seem to be about sexualness, transvestives, drugaddicted prositutes ect and i dont see how 2 little girls dancing innocently would fit into that.

kitsandbits · 28/09/2007 14:05

in context with her other work it seems TO ME that she is trying to sexualise her own children.

Thats just how i interperate that piece when viewed along side all the other pieces ... transvestites with boobs show ... people having sex in the shower ect

jazzyp · 28/09/2007 14:07

Tis a tricky one. I think there's nothing wrong with it as a private photo, but I would never make something like that of my daughter public.

I don't think it's art, it's a really rather crappy family photo. I wouldn't pay to own it or see it on display.

I do think the debate needs to take place though, as unfortunately we live in a world where some people would get off on this photo and that is gross.

Swipe left for the next trending thread