Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
Heathcliffscathy · 27/09/2007 22:45

whose...i know whose, why did i think that wasn't right there.

i make the grammar pedants spin.

madamez · 27/09/2007 22:45

OK, so what about all those baby models used in adverts for nappies/nappy rash cream etc. The world gets a glimpse of their genitals and anuses (anii?) as well. And it is of course entirely possible that peedofils have large video collections of nothing but nappy adverts to tug away over.

As regards the idea of a child in later life being embarrassed by such a photo, a child might be equally embarrassed in later life by a photo of him/herself dressed as a sheep in the nativity play or wearing some particularly magnificent crime against kids' fashion. (one that often comes to mind is a tv advert for something or other featuring a little boy who tugged at his father's sleeve and said 'Daddy I want a wee' in a comedy midlands accent - couldn't you just imagine the poor little sod a few years down the line, trying to chat up a girl for the first time with all his mates going 'd'yer want a wee then?' in the background?).

I've long maintained that the sickest minds are the ones that see porn or filth or peedos everywhere else...

fingerwoman · 27/09/2007 22:45

I think there is a big difference between potential paedophiles seeing a naked child on the beach and one having a copy of a picture of a naked child to do as he wishes with.

I don';t know. that's just my take on it. I am having horrible thoughts of someone sat at their computer looking at that pic and doing all kinds of nasty things at the same time.

sorry if that's a bit much

Happynow · 27/09/2007 22:46

I saw the picture on the web today. Just struck me ... would it still be 'art' if the two girls were fully clothed? I don't think so. In that case it is about them being naked/semi naked and showing their genitalia. Becomes very difficult to draw the line between paedophilia in that case?

Heathcliffscathy · 27/09/2007 22:46

privacy - i get that.....as below

modesty....i think you all need to learn to love your naked bodies, vulvas and all, more. maybe then your children will.

fingerwoman · 27/09/2007 22:46

and I have NEVER seen genitals in a nappy ad.

LittleBella · 27/09/2007 22:47

Yes but you know, lots of families go on Honey We're Killing The Kids. (etc.)

I wonder how those kids feel and what sort of response they get at school.

Re the fact that some peados will get off on this, that's true, but then, some of them will get off on the sight of a little girl in pink wellies. Will we stop buying pink wellies for our girls on the offchance that a pervert will go home and have a wank about it? I think not.

kitsandbits · 27/09/2007 22:47

So sophable would you lie down and open you legs for art?

Blu · 27/09/2007 22:47

Actually, I thnk it is art because it does show the body in it's innocence and free of anything other than childish play..and that is a challenge to our loaded contaminated view.

As proven by it's removal from the exhibition!

kitsandbits · 27/09/2007 22:48

would you allow your daughter to?

Elasticbandstand · 27/09/2007 22:48

i dont actually want to see anyone's vulva

nell12 · 27/09/2007 22:48

So are you going to take a picture of your daughter's vulva, call it art and have it published sophable?

Having a creative, lauded and awarded photographer mother does not seem to have done those girls much good

We are not talking pornography here.. although tbh this picture is like christmas for a peadophile, we are talking about an image that is, at best inappropriate and at worst an infringement of that poor child's human rights being published to the world just to get a reaction

I am not sure how anyone could condone that

margoandjerry · 27/09/2007 22:49

Also, can I just say how very, very bored I am with this whole art debate. It seems to me the thing goes:

artist creates piece of work which is either easy to copy and therefore lacking in skill, or ugly, or shocking in some way

public says oh that's not art, anyone could do that, or it's really ugly, or oh that's shocking

artist says oh well that's the whole point of ART doncha know

Heathcliffscathy · 27/09/2007 22:50

yes. but as a woman, that would be different as genitals in adults can be (not are, can be) sexual. in a child the only sexualisation occurs in the beholder....and the mass reaction to this shot does make it art as it is a comment on the society we live in.

i can see that i could make that point ad infinitum and some people still won't get it.

LittleBella · 27/09/2007 22:50

So would you stop programmes like Little Angels, Supernanny, Honey We're Killing the Kids?

What about the kids' human rights there?

kitsandbits · 27/09/2007 22:50

So if this is 'ART' a man can have this on his PC because it was taken by an artist??

But if he had another picture of a naked childs genitals - he can be done for possesing indecent images of children??

sorry fail to see the difference.

Heathcliffscathy · 27/09/2007 22:51

blu i think i'm going to leave this one in your capable and apparently unwindupable hands.

this is getting a bit UGLY for me.

fingerwoman · 27/09/2007 22:51

"Re the fact that some peados will get off on this, that's true, but then, some of them will get off on the sight of a little girl in pink wellies. Will we stop buying pink wellies for our girls on the offchance that a pervert will go home and have a wank about it? I think not."

surely you minimise risks? no, it wouldn't be reasonable to stop your child wearing pink wellies.
It would however be reasonable not to take a picture of her vagina and publish it worldwide.

Blu · 27/09/2007 22:52

Mademez - do nappy ads show anuses and genitals? I don't think they do. They are maddeningly coy about such things, and litttle babies 'bottoms' are shown as cute and cuddly and fragrant...no real shit or even wee is ever shown, just as no menstrual blood is shown in tampon ads.

I think this photo is a refreshing challenge to that sort of squaemish coyness, and 'cuddlification' of our bodies - as well as the sexualisation of children and, in fact, nakedness per se.

PSCMUM · 27/09/2007 22:52

no sympathy at all either. a load of nonsense. paedophilia nonsense. the kids are just naked, tis how we're all born after all. Not performing a sex act for gods sake! I really resent it that nudity is automatically fast forward interpretted to mean something sex related. Its not. Its jsut what we are like without clothes.

nonsense nonsense nonsense

I have posed for so many naked pictures. They are not sexual in any way. often you can;t even tell its my body, it might be a real close up of the skin or a really far away blurry one of me blurring in with my surroundings. I've done some that are secual, but I know that, and I am doing it on purpose, and ther eis a difference. REally ther eis such a difference.

fingerwoman · 27/09/2007 22:52

sophable I do see your point. I said in my first reply that the pose isn't sexual and I totally wouldn't be bothered if it was in her photo album etc etc

It's the fact that you KNOW that some people will get off on it. And I personally couldn't bear the thought of someone using that picture of my child for those purposes.

margoandjerry · 27/09/2007 22:53

sophable, I haven't noticed you moving your position any closer to anyone else's either...

Dropdeadfred · 27/09/2007 22:53

Would that picture ( which let's face it is not an expert shot, more like a family snapshot) be famous and displayed ANYWHERE other than a family album if those children were fully dressed?

margoandjerry · 27/09/2007 22:53

oh and actually I have said the pose isn't sexual and this isn't about paedophilia.

Heathcliffscathy · 27/09/2007 22:54

yes margo quite, I wish that art had stopped around the time of the renaissance. all those impressionists are to blame, with their messy daubing, making a comment about the world through their painting, stick to doing drawing and painting really well that's what i say.

in fact, photography isn't really art at all is it....after all anyone can take a photo.