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?

agree with JeremyVile. Im no art critic- but is is a load of old shite.

I fail to see how it can be described as 'art'

LOL at not giving peados ammo.

In that case, you won't agree to your child being photographed in their school uniform.

Because that's a huge turn on for some perverts.

I so want Cod to go on the Late Show

im there
a la tracey emin
yraaaaaalshitdanyway

that picture and some people's reaction to it reminds me of the Emperor's new clothes...

Cod - You cant tm (why cant I do the fancy-pants tm?) 'utter utter ponce' - its mine.

You can, however, have 'utte rutter pocne'.

rofl dropdeadfred.

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.

i think if my Mum portrayed my bits, (for arts sake or not) I would probably be mortified at some stage, or pissed off that she had shown something so intimate that (once on the net at least) can never be changed.

I feel the same way about ear piercing.

Look I'm not saying it is brilliant genius art. I'm saying I think it is a good photo, i like it. I am not a professional critic obviously but if this was a family snapshot i would think the photographer had talent. And a very good eye. i don't like emperor's new clothes type art at all and i don't think this is. Anyway as people have said it is a cyclical argument so didn't mean to offend anyone and i'll p*ss off now.

I genuinely like her work. And the more I read about it and her life the more I'm intrigued.

a naked child is not pornography.

it is the people that find an inocent picture of children playing sexualy arousing that have the problem.

why should a women be made to feel like a criminola because she sees her children playing as a beautifull thing, and the photograph of them doing so art.

NadineBagott says in her post of 18:48:54 "....an adult making the decision (probably) to use this image without the child's consent, and a child of that age is in no way capable of making a sound judgment on this anyway...."

Using that argument, no picture should ever be published, of any type, of a child below the age that they are capable of giving informed consent. Sn no pictures of cute babies on birthday/new baby cards, no celebration of the beauty of children just because they are beautiful, no pictures of starving babies in Ethiopa to get us to donate......

Ridiculous when you put it like that.

People keep saying this isn't about the nakedness, but about consent, but then they don't agree that no photos of children should ever be published, as non-nekkid ones appear ot be OK.

So which is it then, I'm confused? (What is this thread about, again?)

OP - What do you have a certain sympathy with? Prostituting your children for art? Or what, exactly?

This falls into the long and disreputable tradition of coppers trying to decide what is Art and what isn't. Ridiculous.

CPS make the decisions these days, generally.

prettybird - I concede the point

but not the debate

NadineBagoott.

We'll just have to agree to differ.

(Actually - this debate reminds me of the time dh took some picutres of some young kids at a baseball match just because they looked so cute and it encapsulated the essence of a "family day out in America". No nudity or sexuality involved (of course!) - but he had to stop when the parents looked at him askance.

glad you found that link sleepycat - i was looking for it when i mentioned sally mann earlier. I think they are stunning photos....

I agree with this below. I also think until they reach say 13 years or about that the parents can decide what is published (in a free society like this) and that if we are ever in doubt then the default position should be no censorship.

"a naked child is not pornography.

it is the people that find an inocent picture of children playing sexualy arousing that have the problem.

why should a women be made to feel like a criminola because she sees her children playing as a beautifull thing, and the photograph of them doing so art."