Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
margoandjerry · 27/09/2007 22:36

I'm not saying the pose is sexual. It clearly isn't.

Some idiots will get turned on by anything and you can't really legislate for them.

However, I would not take this picture of my child or enjoy looking at this picture of my child. Her vulva is not an area for public gaze.

nell12 · 27/09/2007 22:36

The original issue on this thread was not about pornography, though

It was 'what parent allows their child's genitals to be depicted as art?'

I have no issues with nudity, or any part of the human body, what I have an issue with is that this artist has used a very contentious picture of 2 children who are not old enough to give their consent and has placed it in an arena whereby it will be seen all over the world.

hunkermunker · 27/09/2007 22:37

Sophable, this is a world that sells bikinis for baby girls, non-ironically.

Original poster
NadineBaggott · 27/09/2007 22:37

nothing wrong with picture per se, nothing wrong with the children having fun, something wrong (imo) with publishing it.

Come on soph would you post a pic of your children like that? I think not.

OP posts:
Heathcliffscathy · 27/09/2007 22:37

I understand the debate of whether you would exhibit ANY photo of your child (or husband or mother for that matter) for art. nudity however does not come into it and if it does I find that questionable. it really does smack of a paedophilic attitude in the viewer.

Heathcliffscathy · 27/09/2007 22:38

I find that odious hunker (bikinis for little girls). it is the same thing as sending this to the police as possibly pornographic. it sexualises children as much as the feared paedophiles do.

Heathcliffscathy · 27/09/2007 22:39

surely the art in this, is exactly the reaction. the picture is a sweet picture of her daughters dancing. the REACTION to it makes it art as that is what makes a statement about the nature of the times we live in.

nell12 · 27/09/2007 22:40

I am worried for those girls... what an inheritance for them to live with.

InMyHumbleOpinion · 27/09/2007 22:40

It's not porn or art, Imo, it's an argument waiting to happen

Heathcliffscathy · 27/09/2007 22:40

and for that reason it is absolutely valid.

if you disagree with any artist using their children in any way for their work I totally get that.

the rest is bolleaux imo.

fingerwoman · 27/09/2007 22:41

I agree that there is nothing wrong with the picture per se. It is not pornographic, it is not sexual.

however, I would not make it available to all and sundry because some people out there WILL find that sexual and WILL get off on it and I wouldn't want anyone using a picture of my child for those kinds of purposes.

Heathcliffscathy · 27/09/2007 22:41

yes how awful for them to have a famous, creative, lauded and awarded photographer mother.

i feel much sorrier for children who's mothers put them in bikinis.

PeachesMcLean · 27/09/2007 22:42

Thanks hunker. I hadn't seen the picture.

No I wouldn't be happy with that. Partly because the child is going to grow up and be aware that she was seen like that. No accounting for how she's going to feel when she becomes aware of her "privates".

And vulvas aren't offensive. But I wouldn't be happy with mine being shown in a gallery like that.

Sad that we think about paedophiles and pornography. Those kind of viewers are hopefully few and far between. But they are there. And I'd like to protect my child, if it was mine in that photo, from their eyes.

Blu · 27/09/2007 22:42

Pragmatically (and with something of a sinking heart) i can understand the baltic;s decision not to exhibit it - not because i disagree with Sophable, i agree with Sophable, buut i cannot begin to understand why they gave it to the police.

In documentary work I think there is an ethical qustion about subjects, and I wonder how the child would feel in latr life to know that everyone had seen her vulva....just over matter of privacy,not 'obscenity' or anything like that.

Why on earth did they give it to the police?

kitsandbits · 27/09/2007 22:42

My gran had a picture of me on the potty on the front page of her photo album, so that when it was closed ther was an oval cut out and you could see the first picture,

which was me sat there with my vulva on show for the world (and everyone that walked into that house) to see.

When I got to about 12 I asked my gran to change the picture and cringed at the though so many people had seen my privates (even tho in the photo i was only about 3)

How is that girl going to feel when she grows up and realises her mum exposed her in such a personal way??

Has she consented to her vulva being on the news, on internet forums?

for the sake of 'art'??

Original poster
NadineBaggott · 27/09/2007 22:42

just looking at hunker's link not sure if they are her daughters

OP posts:
PeachesMcLean · 27/09/2007 22:42

And i'm a very slow typist

Heathcliffscathy · 27/09/2007 22:42

fingerwoman, do you not let your children run round on the beach naked for that reason. and if so aren't you letting fantasised paedophiles (you ahve no way of knowing if they are on the beach looking) impact your childrens childhood?

Piffle · 27/09/2007 22:42

in private it is your kids playing naturally it is only when others see it that it becomes something else

Like when dd (4)grabs my pubes if we bath together. or when ds2 (6mths ) tweaks my nips and giggles

LittleBella · 27/09/2007 22:43

Totally agree with Sophable.

It is the reaction to it that makes it art. Just like Tracey Emin's bed.

It's a lovely photo. Two little girls having a larf, totally happy in their skins. Only perverts would sexualise it in an adult way, and we're all supposed to think like perverts nowadays.

Heathcliffscathy · 27/09/2007 22:43

i'm really sorry about the who's btw...that's not right is it?

francagoestohollywood · 27/09/2007 22:44

if you disagree with any artist using their children in any way for their work I totally get that.

the rest is bolleaux imo.
I agree

francagoestohollywood · 27/09/2007 22:44

whose soph

Heathcliffscathy · 27/09/2007 22:45

hi franca

margoandjerry · 27/09/2007 22:45

sophable, I really don't think this is about paedophilia. As I've said, you can't really control what other people are going to make of perfectly innocent images.

However, there is an issue of modesty, privacy, call it what you will. I doubt any of us would pose like that for a picture in a public gallery.