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?

i did think that, and did a double take, initially

it is a crapola pic, IMO, what makes it art? please, i want to understand...

Goldin's biography

oh fgs contestualsie my arse
shes a mad old junnkie tyring to maek a fuss

the sheer freedom, energy and exuberance it captures. the innocence, juxtaposed with the the knowingness of the viewer. the children are totally happy, they are at a moment of play. The complexity comes from the way we look at it. the light and the dark, the clarity. [ok I'm going all ponce-tastic now] But if you all can take photos of that technical quality there is some serious talent out there.

she takes pics of addicts, the vulnerable, take s suggestive / sexual pics, yet this is one of a totally different style to the rest of her exploitative , voyeuristic genre?

ruty
you uttet uetter PONCE?

i just don;t see that ruty

i see a grubby, dim, setting, with one overtly naked girl

it just makes me uncomfortable

which is the point, i would think

anyhoo, this is going to be one of those threads where the two sides of the coin are diametrically opposite and no-one is going to say, ' oh, you;re right, i;ve totally changed my mind!'

i guess Goldin knew that was going to be the case, that different people would see different things.

Just clicked on photo-not read all opinions.Sorry, you don't put your kids bits and bobs on public display. Wrong and yes offensive. Ask them in 10 years time whether their bits should be displayed as an "art" project" in their school-no, I don't think so.

I agree with lulu.

deffo no wee.

The picture was from this installation:

"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."

I have no problems with images of naked children. The less censorship we have on this planet the better. It's neurotic adults who probably had repressed parenting themselves who should have therapy rather than object to this kind of thing.

The peadophile aspect doesn't bother me - they will find their kicks all over the place anyway.

But its a shite photo and exploitative by Goldin. There are endless ways to provoke a reaction or debate but inviting the world to discuss an intimate image of your children to further your own profile? Its more than a bit unethical.

you can argue it is unethical. But please will all you professional critics tell me why it is a shite photo technically?

i was thinking of dripping my menstrual flow onto a black canvas and getting dh to ejaculate onto it too and seeing if we can get loads of dosh by depicting our true essence

What a load of bunkum, ruty! "technical quality" my ar$e! I have any number of photos of SmallDragons full of the exuberance of youth, they're all wearing something and they're better photos than that one. Difference is, I'm an Ordinary Person not a photographer and therefore my photos are nothing. If this was taken by an Ordinary Person you wouldn't give it the time of day let alone poncetastic descriptions.

It's not neurotic adults who have a problem with this kind of thing, I am not neurotic and I DO have a problem with it. If you want to show your kids off, do it in a way that paeds can't take it and alter it. I wouldn't put photos like this of my kids on line because deep down you know it's asking for trouble. Liberalism my arse, no-one is checking out my kids and getting off on it There are sick people out there and I'
m not giving them ammo.As a mother (and who give a f if she's an artoist) she has a responsibility to protect her kids. She's not doing this and she's wrong.

has anyone seen my embryo potato on my profile? i could sell that

really don't agree at all NotADragon. I don't like pretentious art in the slightest, and feel very strongly this is a good photo.
And forsale, that says a bit about your attitude towards the human body.

Look I know I'm setting myself up for ponce jibes, but I think the photo has integrity and feel the reactions here are just - yuck. What some of you feel about the photo i feel about some of your reactions.

I pass no comment on the technical quality of the photo.

It's a photo.

It's just not my cup of tea, for all sorts of reasons.

I'm a simple soul, I know what I like and don't like, whatever the technical quality.

forsale - someone's probably already beaten you to it!

Ruty - obviously we are not professional critics (are you? and since when do you need to be to have an opinion on art?), but after seeing the picture once I have absolutely no desire to see it again - it lacks wow factor, it lacks charm, it does not intrigue me in any way.

So in my wholly unprofessional opinion - its shite.

ooh ruty what does it say about my attitude? seriously i would love to know

Seriously, if that photo were taken by an ordinary person, you'd think, "oh they're having fun,lovely snapshot" and leave it at that. Because it's by an artist you think "wow! what a fabulous photograph... blah de blah ponce ponce ponce"

One of the weekend Times magazines used to run a slot where they showed the contact sheet of a truly awesome famous photo. In all cases, the photo which went on to become iconic/famous stood out a mile from those around it which were merely just good/OK photos. This one just isn't there, it's one of the "nice snaps".