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?

Of course it's gynaecological...that's what the word means surely? Just relates to female organs, particularly the study of them.

I think it's a similar mindset to those who object to public breastfeeding, because "titties are for playing with" during sex.

Not identical. Similar. I just don't see this little girl's vulva as a sexual thing, not in this photo. It's skin. Same as leg skin. Or tummy skin. Or nork skin with a baby on it.

though yes, madness to call the police. Should have called Private Eye and had it memorialised in Pseuds' Corner.

It's a picture of a little girl absolutely comfortable in her own body, absolutely unconcerned about the fluster and consternation the sight of her having a larf will have on the world.

That's what's so interesting about it. The predictable uproar. If everyone ignored it, there'd be no mileage in publishing it. There'd be no space for it in art. The reason it's there, is because of the insistence that we all approach the picture in the same way a paedophile would; by seeing a sexual meaning that isn't there.

And the privacy issue is a red herring; otherwise we'd abolish Honey We're Killing the Kids (and a good thing too, probably)

Hunker, nice idea but if it's just skin, why don't we all walk round with our fannies on display? Why are hands ok but bottoms are not?

It's not "just skin" anymore than any human behaviour is "just neurones and chemical reactions".

LOL at Margo, (even though I don't agree with you about it being pseudy!)

I said "in this photo" Margo - she's clearly perfectly happy to be naked while playing with her sister.

I don't walk round with my fanny out because I don't like seeing people be sick

M&J we're adults.

A picture of a woman in that position, would have sexual implications, because an adult woman is conscious of her sexuality.

Oh God, Honey WE're Killing the Kids - i absolutely think that should be stopped. Deeply dodgy ethics. Send the kids uot and show a pic of children rotting, which all thier school friends will be glued to on national TV.....I really think all those programmes should not be allowed!

Honestly, i would exhibit a free and innocent picture of DS naked long before i would put him on any reality or makeover TV.

yes but what we keep saying is that this is not just about sexuality which I think we are all agreed is not present in this photo.

I fear this is all tilting at windmills. The outrage about paedophilia is just not really there. It's about privacy and modesty which becomes an issue when a private moment gets turned into a photograph for public view.

not sure who said it but ages ago someone responded to a post saying 'PSC mum i cnnot belive youa re saying it is ok for paideos to have images ont their computers' or similar. I didn't say its 'ok' I jhust said that if it happens that this photo is used as a wank aid - will the kids involved actually know or be effected?

i don't think so!

PSCMUM I actually agree with you. I can't get that het up about what someone I don't know does in the own mind with a glimpse of my daughter as long as she doesn't know anything about it.

Obviously I'd rather it didn't exist but I can't do anything about it.

However, I am saying something quite different.

Blu, agree - some of the children on reality parenting progs are being massively exploited, IMO (and in the O of Dr Tanya Byron as well, so it's right ).

Picture the scene. 8yr old girl brings a letter home from school... "are you a budding artist? we are setting up the hall as a gallery, exhibit your work to raise funds for PTA"

Mum looks at letter "Oh darling I think I may submit the photograph of you and your sister playing that I took last week"

Daughter "But mum, I have no clothes on, everyone will see me naked" (girl being 8 is just entering into a lifetime of insecuity about her body that is plagued by all women in some form or another, worldwide)

Mum replies "no darling, people will not laugh at you, they will see that I am making a statement about the pseudo-paranoia that todays society feels towards childhood nudity when linked to paedophilia"

daughter "oh yes, of course, everyone will see it that way, why on earth would I feel embarassed or ashamed???"

Well blow me, I had it wrong all along, that poor child obviously understood what this was about and gave her full consent and is already fully emotionally prepared to deal with the baggage that will follow her from now on.

I am astounded that some MNters feel that they would be happy for their own children to be photographed in this way.

He he!

I think this woman's theme is vulnerability. She's taken a lot of pics of people in private situations where they're not personally aware they are vulnerable. So it fits in with her art. So she is playing on the fact that this photograph is of someone who is vulnerable but at the same time not aware of it. So there is an element of exploitation in her work but I guess she doesn't see it as exploitation as it's art.

But there is a big but, and that is the difference between the adult and the child. When I see her other work I don't feel the discomfort I feel when looking at this picture. The Chapman brothers also made me feel discomfort but it was different because there was no issue about individuals privacy - they were anonymous. Nan Goldin has gone out of her usual context here and I think she's made a big mistake.

Well said Mrs Marvel, very articulate for this late hour

I think it's tragic that children have to use a do-gooding patronising TV programme to get their quality of life back. Don't get me wrong I think they are good for the rest of us (I've learnt a great deal from those programmes) but do they really have to sell their souls to Channel 4 to get a bit of help?

If the waiting list for counselling is too long there's probably some NHS procedure designed to send them off to Jeremy Kyle!!!

This is ridiculous.

Any sane person would not be publicising pictures of their naked children - whether it is art or not.

This is exactly the kind of response she should have avaoided by not doing this. I think some artists live in their own bubble of pretentiousness for too long and need to face reality and not try and excuse it all as an artistic statement.

They inhabit the same world with the same morals and public scutiny as us.

Articulate but rather boring I'm afraid!

Now I remember - I haven't had a drink yet. Bah.

Neither have I so what is my excuse??!!

I always get to the interesting topics far too late. This one scratched my very dormant photography student itch.

It got quite heated for a while!!
As usual some resorted to writing completely contentious and unnecessary things just to prove their point
Thank god things have calmed down now, I can go to bed without wondering what I am missing!

I'm glad I missed it then. Bed now - with pants on!