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?

They do explore issues in a different way and on different visual levels - but i still think they need to sometimes follow the same moral rules as us when it comes to certain things such as parading round naked pics of their family. We just wouldn't do that because of the negative impact it would have on them and all the many consequences that would unfold.

There are many millions of ways of making an artistic statement rather than this.

sophable, i had to log on at this ridiculously early time to APOLOGISE for my stupid comment to you last night. I was in a rush and really cross about something unrelated. I just typed the first thing that came into my head and i now realise that what i said was uncalled for and not written very well. I am very very sorry if i have offended you.

oh, and i just read the rest of your posts, very good. Oh and i hope you had a good "cuddle"

I think it is a great shame that such an obviously innocent picture has been sexualized.

er, Nell - not one person, I think, said that they denied that there was a privacy / consent issue!
M&J was right when she said that there was a lot od tilting at windmills going on - not many peple said it was porn, either.

The discussion is about what the picture is saying, and whether it is ok to use non-consenting people as the subject of art.

However the expaectation of contention seems to have generated contention...which takes us back to Sophables point about what is created in the mind of the spectator.
Eric - I disagree with you - for me one of the purposes of arrt is to take a little journey into the 'what if..'of other viewpoints on what we are as humans. Whiulst i of course agree that artists are not above the law, what you describe sounds more like illustration than art.

If we accpet that it is 'insane' to have an innocent pgoto of a child playing, then we accpet something very limiting in our society, and we adopt, by default, the levels of the exploitative and perverted.

Big grin for LucyEllensMum - i know you as a well grounded and perceptive poster!

oh I missed this debate, looks a good un

Am on the side of the artist - I see my daughter's vulvas all the time and so do visitors to my house - it's just part of children playing, isn't it? There's something very beautiful and lovely about naked children

I loved this comment from a mother-of-4-girls on the other talkboard that was mentioned below:

"If you find this picture to be erotic, then you are fucked up in the head and need to go cut your penis off."

I've just seen the photo, which isn't particularly stunning as a piece of art imo. Just can't see why she deliberately took a picture of the girl's genitals in such a full on way. It looks like the whole point is to put them in the middle of the photo, not just incidental to the shot. That's why I feel uncomfortable about it, not that they are there, it's how they are there.

morethan - but perhaps that's because you see genitals as being more significant than her knees or belly button - and why wouldn't you - that is what our culture sugggests, and what our panic anbout paedophilia makes us scared of. The point is (perhaps) that thepicture asks us, in it's obviously playful context, to cast aside the effects of 'sexualizatoin' and see this as truly innocent.

If you find that hard, that is the point !

Morningpaper - "I see my daughter's vulvas all the time" Have you taken her to see a doctor?

I find it interesting that people are saying that the genitals are "the focus" of the pic

To me, the dancing girl smiling at her sister is the focus of the shot - and then my eye is drawn to the little baby sister smiling up at her big sister

and then I think "Lordy, that sink looks ROUGH"

but maybe I have been desensitised to fat baby vulvas as they are all over my house

If I had taken that photo of my daughter who is nearly 2, I would not put it in the family album. If the full on vulva truly was incidental to the shot then in this digital age, it could be cropped to occlude the vulva without losing its integrity. Personally, I think they should have inserted a mn emoticon over the vulva: contemporary woman's figleaf? As to whether it is art. It is art in the same way as Tracey Emin's bed is art in that it shocks and provokes debate. I prefer Vermeer or even Banksy.

agree with Blu and Sophable.

Also this comment from Bookthief: "It starts off as "protecting" children and it ends up oppressing them. "

No oppressing here. Children play naked all the time in my home. No issue with it at all. And am robustly opposed to paedophilia paranoia.

And yes, plenty of people see my daughter's vulva, incidentally to changing her nappy or her running around naked.

But I prefer not to crystalise it into a photograph and display for all to see. As children grow older, different levels of privacy start to apply.

Also, this has all been done before - remember the similar argument about another photographers' two naked children on the beach wearing masks? We had to rehearse the same dreary arguments then about "what is art".

If you really think of yourself as an artist with something novel to say, then please make it novel. I assume that was the point of this picture as it's not otherwise particularly appealing or interesting.

What an utterly sh*te photo! Is she a photographer? If so, she really ought to consider a change of profession.

Nothing wrong with it as a personal snapshot but I don't think it has any place in an exhibition.

Blu - genitals are more significant that bellybuttons or knees surely - their function is sexual not purely physical, which is't cultural but just a fact. That's why I think it's weird she's deliberately framed the photo to have them in the middle. As a photographer she must surely have chosen how to take her photos, and not just accidentally ended up with a vulva staring out at the viewer? It's not even an attractive photo - more like one I'd delete as being a bit rubbish.

Exactly my point Notadragon...this looks like an amateur home shapshot...would it have ever achieved fame (or infamy)if both children were clothed?

i find this thread depressing. I don't think the artist has deliberately framed her daughter's genitals in centre shot at all. I think it is a rather beautiful picture. I mean come on, it is a moment of her daughters at play, as they really were. not engineered. She is not doing the sexualizing. you lot are.

Well maybe we are ruty but we are mums who are used to seeing the genitals of our dc's on a daily basis and as a rule don't view them as sexual.
But I think that picture is pretty crap too and I don't want to see the vulva of a child in a picture anymore than I would want to see it if I was visiting Nan Goldin's house and her dc's were playing in front of me.

The pic is innocent, the exhibiting of it is not.

you wouldn't want to see her child's vulva if you went to her house??? So my 3 year old son playing happily with his friend in the paddling pool all summer, naked, would be offensive to you? Good Grief.

No not offensive, I am not offended by children's bodies, I just wouldn't particularly want to see her daughters vulva. Children's bodies are beautiful and of course not sexual but I do not care for a vulva in my eye-line in general, anyones tbh.

If a child was running around naked I wouldn't see their genitals any more than i would see their knees or elbows.