Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
Blu · 27/09/2007 23:18

Actually I would be 100% happy for a detailed pic of my vulva to be shown in an art gallery.

As long as my face wasn't also shown! - so no-one would know it was me. But many (lucky, imo) people don't feel so hung up.

LittleBella · 27/09/2007 23:18

But peaches this isn't gynacological either.

It's two little girls playing. One of them happens to be nekkid.

hunkermunker · 27/09/2007 23:19

Soph, I was thinking just that! it's almost like we're one person these days!!!!!!!

MrsMarvel · 27/09/2007 23:19

OK OK calm down everyone!

I have just done my research and looked at some of the artist's other works. It is futile to see art based on one image, you have to see it in context of the other work the artist has done. So here it is:

www.artnet.com/Artists/ArtistHomePage.aspx?artist_id=7135&page_tab=Artworks_for_sale

The vast majority of Nan Goldin's work is snapshotty style pics of her bohemian friends in vulnerable / compromising positions. An art theorist I'm sure has spent many words describing the work in a better way.

But my conclusion is that her children are not the same as her mates. Whether or not she gets her mates' consent to show their topless locker room pics is another matter. Fact is, consent or no consent, these are her children. They may give consent when they're 18, but at the moment they can't.

margoandjerry · 27/09/2007 23:19

My response to it is which is the nearest I can get to bored and fed up with being patronised by the art world.

bookthief · 27/09/2007 23:19

Exactly Blu. I have found myself practicing self-censorship when photographing my baby son and that's the real shame.

The more this idea of "privacy" when it comes to tiny childrens' bodies becomes the norm, the less children will be able to run about naked and just enjoy themselves in complete innocence and ignorance of feeling any shame at being naked. I've seen threads on here that suggest it is already deemed inappropriate for really very small children to be naked at all in public.

It starts off as "protecting" children and it ends up oppressing them.

(Sorry, ranty and poorly expressed. Will take my frustrated nudist self to bed now )

harpsichordcarrier · 27/09/2007 23:20

actually I have seen this photo before, this is quite an old sequence isn't it?

Heathcliffscathy · 27/09/2007 23:21

not poorly expressed booktheif, spot on imo.

my husband is waiting, his body is warm and his arms are snuggly so what am i doing still here....

[sound of swish as sophable legs it upstairs]

francagoestohollywood · 27/09/2007 23:23

I agree with bookthief. I'll go to bed, I can't keep up. Only I have a snoring husband, with cold feet.

harpsichordcarrier · 27/09/2007 23:24

god yes bookthief
how true.
in seeking to protect children from some putative paedo who may or may not be getting some sort of kick from looking at them we restrict their freedoms - their independence, and by imposing innappropriate notions of sexuality on the innocent.
at the same time we sell the same children sexed up dollies and jewellery and oh what a fucked up world we live in.

PeachesMcLean · 27/09/2007 23:24

Gynaecological as in the "The branch of medicine dealing with health care for women, especially the diagnosis and treatment of disorders affecting the female reproductive organs." How are vulvas separate to that?

Original poster
NadineBaggott · 27/09/2007 23:25

All I wanted to know really is would YOU allow YOUR child to be viewed in an identical photo in an exhibition?

I'm not really interested in 'is it art' (not in my book) 'is it pronography' (very definitely not!)

OP posts:
LittleBella · 27/09/2007 23:26

Women are protected by wearing burkhas you know

Except that women in Afghanistan get raped too.

You can't protect children from paedo's by trying to anticipate what will turn a paedo on and then doing the opposite. Al that happens is what bookthief says - you start oppressing the person you want to protect.

Blu · 27/09/2007 23:26

Soph - I'm exploring what i do thnk about it, i think. Your explanation about our role in sexualising it, by worrying ab out others sexualising it crystalloised something for me.

But i remain troubled by the point earlier that the same inmage would be evidence against someone with paedophile interests...how do we decide what 'context'is? We have to stick with the ppint that Harpsi made - there was no abuse in the situation that was photographed.

Anyway- am on DPs laptop so typing even worse than usual, and must go to bed.

Night!

nell12 · 27/09/2007 23:26

No it does not make it art. It makes it a shameful publicity stunt. I know that this picture has been around for a while and it has only just come to our attention but tell me, if I had taken a picture of my children, fully dressed and in that pose to a gallery or a publisher saying that it was and belly dancing, I would have been laughed out of town.

This woman is using her power as a renowned and often controversial artist (and yes, I do think she is an artist, in other pieces of work she has produced) to have this picture published.

She may well think it is art

I see it as a sad testament on our times that MOTHERS are willing to have pictures of their daughters vulvas published, calling it art, apparently makes it acceptable.

I am no prude, I have an excellent understanding of art and its interpretation. However, I find it shocking that this girl has a mother who is willing to let the world see her daughter portrayed in such a manner

harpsichordcarrier · 27/09/2007 23:26

because that child's vulva is not diseased or in the process of being examined for any medical reason?

Blu · 27/09/2007 23:27

Littlebella - spot on.

Original poster
NadineBaggott · 27/09/2007 23:27

You might Blu would you allow your child?

Just looked at your link MrsM all I can say is 'givusajob'

OP posts:
harpsichordcarrier · 27/09/2007 23:28

and yes, I would if I respected the artist and I thought it was a worthwhile piece of art and if her father agreed.

PeachesMcLean · 27/09/2007 23:28

god the semantics of this place.
Gynaecology deals with the female reproductive organs. diseased or otherwise surely.

Original poster
NadineBaggott · 27/09/2007 23:28

there are two 'ifs' in there harpsi!

OP posts:
hunkermunker · 27/09/2007 23:29

I think I would allow my children to be.

I would've had no problem with it myself, had I been photographed in that fashion, so I should have the confidence to say it's OK for them, maybe?

But then I have boys, so no doubt there'll be posts from people saying "oh-hoh, you don't KNOW what it's like to have a girl". Well, no, but I AM one

Blu · 27/09/2007 23:29

peaches, it's jjust her vulva in the natural position it would be in - nothing artificial or deliberate is being done to actively expose her genitals.

Blu · 27/09/2007 23:30

Nadine - no probably not, bcause as I have said, i do think the consent / privacy thing is an issue. in this pic and any that i maight have of DS.

Blu · 27/09/2007 23:30

But why were the police called? madness, surely?

Swipe left for the next trending thread