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'm glad my four year old vulva was never displayed in a public gallery.

sopphable, i hardly think its a laughing matter. This woman has exploited her children, maybe she is too far up her own arse to see it that way.

Oh and not just anyone can take a good, atmospheric photo. That was when i stopped taking you seriously

franca you need bigger huge penis broadband

sorry my mind just makes these links i can't help it.

I know it pleases some posters on here to think they are communicating with paid up Daily Mail readers but actually, those who don't think the image is appropriate are tending not to use the P word and are not jumping up and down about dirty old men.

This is actually about privacy and respect for children's bodies.

hahahahahahaha

respect meaning that photos of children are ok, but not naked ones.

talk me through it please.

o light en up peopuw!

its not like she is giving a goat a blow job.

PCSMUM -
I thought it was aversion therapy....oh no, what have i done?

PSCMUM
I actually can't believe you are saying it's ok for paedophiles to have explicit images on their computers as long as the children involved don't klnow about it!

can't quite get my head around that one.
would you mind if your kid's pics were found on a paedo's pc?

lucyellen i can hardly bear to post this but ....that was MY POINT

art

"This is actually about privacy and respect for children's bodies"

Absolutely. They didn't consent.

That child will have the infamy of that picture follow her around for the rest of her life.

I hope once she is an adult she will have developed the mechanisms to react to ignorant people who will taunt her about it, but until then she has my concern and pity.

She is a child fgs, she has a famous mother, I bet you anything there will be a retrospective in the Sunday Times Mag in 15yrs asking her how she dealt with the situation.

Until then, I am afraid to say I have my Mum hat on and I see it as exploitation, pure and simple

fingerwoman for all i know ds or me or dh are on someone's pc or in someone's mind as a source of fantasy. i choose not to live my life with that thought uppermost tbh.

V limited view of art franca.

I think the world has gone freaking mad. I hate the expression "child porn" anyway.
child "porn" is simply a photographic record of abuse.
these children are not being abused in any way. they are playing. that's it.
I think it is rather a beautiful and meaningful picture tbh.

so peaches, that means nothing with children in it. children cannot give consent until they are 14 (gillick law? is it). so no ads, no programmes, no posters with any children on as they are being exploited.

I think the photo is fine. What could possibly be offensive about a wee girl's genitals for god's sake???

This photo has been on display in exhibitions for years. It comes to Britain and our paedophilia-obsessed media splashes it everywhere (with a carefully placed pixillated area just to emphasise how bad and obscene it is). Shameful.

Imo, Embarrassment/shame about nakedness is a learnt emotion and the chances are Nan Goldin's kids will grow up in the sort of circles that won't be that fussed about propriety about keeping your "private parts" hidden at all times so really I wouldn't be too worried for them.

It's the consent thing isn't it. The children didn;'t give their consent, and aren't old enough to. They seem to be of an age where they would walk about in public like that, but don't get that that is effectively what they are doing. I think these should have been witheld until those girls were adults, and they should have a say in whether they are art or argybargy fodder or porn.

As it is, they are children, and do not fully understand the impact these photographs may have on their lives.

Nothing to do with dirty old men in macs.

Abuse could be showing someone as thye might not want to be seen when they're old enough to consent.

They wouldn't walk about in public like that. I mean.

paedophilia obsessed full stop it seems. not just media.

art!!!!

franca how dare you show that filth, did the children that modelled for the putti give their consent??? how very very dare you!

by the way before the dawn of the internet paedophiles used to collect Mothercare and Ladybird catalogues.
they weren't child porn either.
if we allow the "notional paedophile" to limit our freedoms in these ways then I think we have got our perspectives all skewed.
this child, like every young child I know, has no sense of shame about her body, notions of privacy and respect when playing in her own home mean zip all.