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?

sophable that's an extreme interpretation of one remark. I'm happy for a smiley photo of my face. I'd not be happy with a picture of my vulva in a popular gallery.

PLEASE - I'm not positive she is their mother - I don't where I got that from, I'm old - she may be she may not be .....

does it make a difference?

But are they reclined putti with their vulvas on full view??

No because that would be completely inappropriate and unacceptable

there are gradations here - it's not a simple issue.

However, yes naked photos of children are fine and I don't have an issue with them. But unless they are particularly beautiful or interesting, they are probably mainly of interest to the family.

The nakedness starts to infringe on a child's privacy as the child grows older. Toddlers really don't care. Some five year olds might start to get a bit funny about it (I remember hating changing into gym kit at infant school because it was done in the classroom in front of everyone)

Plus a four year old standing naked on a beach somewhere is different to an 11 year old standing naked on a beach because the 11 year old probably is starting to develop physically and should be treated with a bit more caution.

Finally, standing on a beach naked doesn't give anyone a full shot of a child's vulva. I don't understand why anyone would want their vulva photographed in this way. The vulva is a very private part of anyone's body - baby, child, adult.

I am really not being outraged about this. I am actually irritated by it and bored by the art world's pretention and presumption that we need their "provocative" images or we just wouldn't think about these issues because we are all so drab and provincial.

i just think its a crap photo - can see no art in it at all

actually art is stuffed full of little boys with there willies out
would you like me to google

"notions of privacy and respect when playing in her own home mean zip all."

isn't that the point? it's moved out of the home and into public view.

I'm shocked really. I remember when member profiles first arrived on mn, there was a lot discussion about not posting images of our own children on world wide web.

ahhh, sorry art has to be 'pretty'.

i forgot.

i'm going to bed.

Whoever is the mother of this child, whether it be Nan Goldin or not, she has still given permission for an exploitative photograph of her daughter to be made public.

That I will never understand

I have often wondered about that picture of the naked girl running down the road after an napalm attack.

Now, i think that picture is powerful because one of the things it does is relate us to a horror which is way beyond bothering about whether someone is naked or not, but I wondered how she felt, later, about being seen so vulnerable, and unprivate.

C4 was teeming, earlier, with footage of naked children dancing. In 'Meet the natives. doing a farewll dance. No-one would object to that (presumably? I hope? ) because it is outside a context in which children are sexualised. One of the tragedies of paedophilia is that to a certain extent it makes us see things form a paedophiles pov:'how would a paedophile see this...oh yes, like this, sexual invitation..." This picture challenges us to leave that way behind, to free ourselves of it. To view it in the clean uncontaminated way we viewed naked children dancing in "Meet the natives'.

Harpsi said willies

I agree with Blu and Sophable on this.

im not saying art has to be pretty but its just a photo surely? whats the hidden message in the pic?

you see the thing about you blu is that you can really be arsed to really engage with and type such an eloquent response, despite the fact that it will be ignored to a large extent. you rock.

i'm tired.

great debate, sorry i've lowered tone with facetiousness, shit day.

xxx

have done already harspy, posted some raffaello and michelangelo

their sorry
honestly, would you like me to find you arty penises?
or are penises somehow less inappropriate

Napalm image is not at the same gynaecological angle.

art

sorry harpsi

I agree with Nadine.

In your own home of course you play like this - precisely because you are in a private, protected space. I can imagine my nephews and nieces in this pose.

I just wouldn't take a photo of it, put it in a public gallery and congratulate myself on how I was "challenging conceptions of beauty" or whatever nonsense it is that they parrot without really being able to explain what it is they are trying to do or say.

but before i go:

HUNKER, WHAT HEDGEHOGS AND ART/PORN/CHILDREN/SEXUALISATION DEBATE???

we are progressing in leaps and bounds towards a homogenised hunkable position!

[splutters on tea] childs vulva is gynaecological??????????

art does not have to be pretty, but art that exploits for publicity's sake is not art, it is a condemnation of our intellects

Blu, I think about that photo often. I am reminded of it every time I see my child running in the nude because dd1 resembles that girl in lots of ways.
I do think the photo is meaningful. the point about it being taken in her own home is that she wasn't invaded, disrespected, or abused in any way. her innocent play was captured on film. I think our response to it is very interesting

I think the nudity in this picture IS important, but not in a titillating sense, more a naive, free sense.

So no, it wouldn't be as powerful if the little girl was wearing, say, a bikini.

There are photos of me naked when I was younger. I'll scan one in and post it one day, maybe - I don't care at all that people have seen my childhood vulva. I won't be taking a current one though, you'll all be glad to hear

now nell, that is a decent argument except that rather than our intellects isn't it a condemnation of the way we are viewing the girls? and doesn't that make it art (that's the third time i've made the point....i'm boring myself now)