Nan Goldin's 'Art' Photography of her daughters

[NadineBaggott]

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?

Having two little girls who seem to go absolutely loopy with joy when they are free of clothes, I like the photo.It makes me smile. I think if I had seen it in an exhibition amongst other photos, I wouldn't think anything of the particular pose in which the naked girl has been captured.

Now that it has been removed from the exhibition and seized by police it sets me off thinking too much about the photo and questioning whether it should be published/exhibited.

Child nudity is so innocent. As adults, arty nude pictures are set up and contrived to be 'tasteful'. Most adults I know would not pose in the way that girl has been captured, let alone feel comfortable in that position amongst friends with clothes on!

It would be weird to set up artful photos of children naked but the fact that this little girl is simply engrossed in play with her sister and oblivious to her clothless state and the position she is adopting, says a lot about childhood innocence.

It's a shame so many of us are questioning this photo now. Do you really think you'd have thought too much of it if you'd seen in in an exhibition amongst other photographs?

Not that I would go to an exhibition of this type. Her work doesn't appear to be my sort of thing overall.

Two points

One I said further down I'm not absolutely sure they are her daughters

Two, this thread was not supposed to be about whether it's a sexual photo I think everyone is agreed it isn't (why do we have to spell things out) - it's about parents allowing their childrens genitals to be displayed as art (and would you truly allow your child to be exhibited in this way?).

I think we're also all agreed that dancing around the beach/garden/house naked is completely normal, taking photos of that play also normal but at the point when legs are splayed and facing the camera? that is somewhat questionable imvho.

I dont think all photos of naked children are pornography but why would anyone buy pictures of someone elses naked child...she seems misguided to me.

The issue for me is more that we all have photos at our parents bring out that we go "arrrgh no put it away"...she has sold 'those' pictures of her children to complete strangers. I really dont think she has the right to sell the pictures until her children are of an age to weigh up the pros and cons and give their opinion.

I think we're also all agreed that dancing around the beach/garden/house naked is completely normal, taking photos of that play also normal but at the point when legs are splayed and facing the camera? that is somewhat questionable imvho.

EXACTLY

I think it is fine - obviously - for that family. I wouldn't object to seeing it in a gallery ( although ...whispers... I don't actually think it is very good).
But as the mother of one teenager I would be very troubled about my childs privacy.
if her kids were now over 18 I would have no problem.

I do not have a problem with Elton Johns Gayness, not in the slightest. I would imagine that he thinks it is art.

My post does read as if i think it is disgusting that EJ has it and i didnt mean it to be (Heavens, i could be sued!!! lol), that fact that he is Gay has no bearing on it whatsoever.

Anna, i think a naked pic of your LOs sounds lovely, really, but for public display when you know it is going to illicit such a reaction??

So i guess really, perhaps it is the sorry state of society that we should be flaming and not the "artist". Personally i found it to bad taste, however i remember i seeing an awful "sculpture" in the sahchee gallery where children were depicted with genetalia as mouthes, i didn't have small children at the time but was still outraged by what i saw. Now, i think i would have been tempted to deface it.

I do not like art that shocks for the sake of shocking. I agree it should make the observer think and question things, but shock value is very little value myself. I think art at least have to be aesthetically pleasing in some way.

my spelling just gets worse!!

The picture is fine but if you put it in the public domain some old perv will be wanking over it. Fact. I just can't imagine willingly putting my children through that for the sake of art.

The debate shouldn't be about art. The debate should be about some self-obsessed photographer using a photo of her kids to make a statement about HER and her work. Has she no respect at all for her daughters' feelings? And the fact that when they're older they might be utterly humiliated to realise that that picture has been the subject of all this? And the fact that now millions of people have seen that little girl naked even though she couldn't possibly have given meaningful consent to the picture being displayed?

What a completely selfish cow this photographer is. And how sorry I am for those little girls.

I don't really see why people are so interested in this. I'm trying hard to be shocked over the photo because that seems to be the greatest response but every time I think of a reason to be shocked, I can rationally explain it away.

I'm more shocked that the police have seized the photograph and wondering on what grounds?

Anna - Lovely to have a naked portrait of your daughter - does it show her vulva in full frontal? Of course it doesn't.

Elton John should have gone to Specsavers and thinks leopardskin coats look good. He also has had problems with compulsive shopping. Of course he thinks it's art.

Again if you read the thread people aren't shocked at the photo they're shocked that it's in the public domain in an exhibition.

ekra that is because you are a sensible person
I think it is interesting that so many people have focussed so strongly on the little girl's exposed vulva as being the central, the only, the most significant thing int he shot.
the standing girl is more prominent, her pose is interesting, there is an interesting interaction between the two of them
the girl on the floor is much less prominent and not the focus of attention.
I think so many people focus on her genitals because it is so "inappropriate" to see them and we ar shocked by it.
but it isn't the primary focus of the photo

Af she was post pubescent then it probably would be viewed as somewhat pornographic because the view would be something that we recognise as sexual. Trouble is some weirdos think what they are seeing on that picture IS sexual.

I've been to The Black Musuem (the Met Polices museum of confiscated,strange and morbid items) there were some confiscated Works Of Art there.

One was a pair of earrings made from aborted foetus.

So in many definititions 'art' but completely horrific imvho.

(Not likening the earrings with the snapshot, but just exploring the difinition of art)

definition

OMG - why oh why would anyone use a foetus for ANYTHING?

The photo is absolutely fine IMO and I have many photos of my DCs in the nude - tbh if I didn't then I would hardly have any photos of DD given her reluctance to keep her clothes on at home! The difference is that my photos are for personal viewing by close family and not for selling to the general public - no way would I allow that as they have no choice in the decision and the photos could fall into unscrupulous hands. If DD wanted to do nude modelling when older then I would support her decision but that would be her call, not something I had forced her into.

or a dead sheep, or bricks, or an unmade bed

So, why is it illegal / unnacceptable to have aborted feotuses as a work of art, but ok for the same feotuses to be displayed in a police museum for people to horrorise over?

I'd rather they stayed in the gallery, I think, given the choice of those two options.

[creeps back onto thread] i dare hardly look, does anyone want to spare me the reading and tell me how this has gone since last night?

sophable - i think more people are actually wondering why such a nondescript photograph would have been displayed if it didn't have nudity...

I agree with Blu, Ruty, Sophable, HCC, ekra et al.

The only reason I saw anything sexual in the photograph was becasue I was being told that it was sexual and had previously had my attention drawn to the fact that her vulvla was exposed. Otherwise I owuld just have seen tow girls comfortable in their skins playing - and would have rejoiced in the innocence of it.

If people have concerns about the fact that she did not "consent" to the hoto, then in theory, no picures ever should be published of any child until they are old enought to give informed consent. Who are we to say which photos might embarass them?