BBC showed members of the public the photo which was removed from an exhibition. Personally, I see it as two innocent children playing. I can't understand a mentality which makes nudity and pornography the same thing - they clearly are not, so in my book it isn't porn. I honestly get quite worried by the thought processes of those who regard this kind of thing as porn. Children do this kind of thing all the time, but usually not in front of the lens of a camera. But I may concede it is exploitative, insofar as the subjects of the photograph were much too young to consent to the publication and public display of their image. This image of "Klara and Edda Belly Dancing" by Nan Golding has been exhibited countless times and printed without complaint, but if there is a complaint about it I think it is merely one of exploitation of the subjects, not of pornography.
2007-09-27 14:24:33 · 11 answers · asked by Phil McCracken 5 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Photography
I agree you can't ask permission to photograph an animal. But as for children, can the parents really give permission on their behalf? Consider that the image has the potential to last forever. I agree with you that it isn't porn. I'm not convinced it is art either, though I am not knocking photography as an art form.
2007-09-27 14:40:12 · update #1
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As long as the children are not doing anything inappropriate then there should be no censorship.
There are plenty of naked children in Renaissance art.
2007-09-27 18:41:33 · answer #1 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The BBC also stated it could not show the picture in full as it showed the exposed genitalia of child who was lying down. In a day and age where exploitation of children appears to be rife maybe I would question the taste? Parent approval on pics is really nothing to go by - a lot of parents are quite prepared to prostitute their children. I think its a pity that society makes us think this way these days.
2007-09-27 23:08:13 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It seems that a lot of people in this forum seem to be dismissing the artistic integrity of this work based on their evaluation that the photo lacks aesthetic merit. However isn't art much more than aesthetics? If art was just about aesthetics: line, color, depth etc, we would call it design, but art is much more than design. This work has a lot of artistic merit in the fact that it has provoked a wide range of discussion on a variety of topics not unforseen by Goldin, who is herself an incredibly cerebral photographer/artists and who does in fact uses gut wrenching imagery and controversy to provoke discussions.
Good art has the viewer ask difficult questions, and I think your question and response gives merit to Goldins work. Though I agree this image is not pornography, it does spark an important discussion on a variety of important topics such as child exploitation, parental consent and to a lesser extent nudity and art. Perhaps this image will make a difference in terms of causing political reform on how we define child exploitation.
Now in terms of Nan Goldins work, she works in series, and though this image by itself may not stand alone as a piece of art, when referenced with the rest of her work, it makes sense and comes under the umbrella of being a work of art, and not simply a photograph. This idea of working in a series is not unique to photography as painters do in fact work in series, but the way which it is done in photography is a bit different. Another photographer who works in a similar fashion to Goldin is Araki Nobuyoshi, whose work is a bit more risky than Goldins on so many other levels.
2007-09-28 11:39:49 · answer #3 · answered by wackywallwalker 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's not porn, and I'm sure the artist got the permission of the parents. My daughter does that stuff all the time, the things I see from behind my camera! I don't think it's exploitative at all! What next, asking the tigers at the zoo if we can snap them???
I've already said my piece about this work on another question - but the artist has created a lot of debate with her work and that's always healthy.
2007-09-27 21:33:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
I haven't actually seen the photo (do you have a link?) but the problem with this sort of thing is that porn, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I have two young children who are totally unselfconscious about their bodies and are happy to run around naked. While I have no issue with this, I am aware that there are more sickos around than we would like to admit, and sadly, I am very careful about how much freedom they have in this respect. For example, I won't let them get changed poolside although they would be quite happy to do so. I realise people who get sexual kicks from seeing children will do so regardless of what parents do, but the thought of someone looking at MY naked children for gratification makes me sick.
So...for these reasons, I can understand the furore, although I think it's a sad indictment of todays society that we have to think this way.
2007-09-27 22:10:00 · answer #5 · answered by f0xymoron 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No the guy is gay, and he has always been in to an honest reflection in art, and that is what this is, let`s not take the innocents away from our kid`s because of the bloody media, and this P.C. correct cr-p. they have been painting nudes way back from the Egyptian time`s, give them a break please!
Regards
Ryan Dior.
2007-09-28 04:36:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's art, but the whole world is in a witchhunt these days, when about 30 years ago, this type of art was extremely common, Brooke Shilds in Pretty Baby for instance. If they can sell that movie in the 5.99 bin at Wal Mart, it's not pron.
2007-09-27 21:45:43 · answer #7 · answered by jodlro@sbcglobal.net 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
well it's child nudity and in my opinion its not art. it's just a photo claiming to be art. I say this because the picture does not show any sign of 'creativity' or is not capturing a beautiful or significant moment, at least in my mind. But no porn.
2007-09-27 21:44:52 · answer #8 · answered by Tha Joker 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Where is this photo and if it is child porn does that mean the BBC are also guilty for showing it? as ignorance of the law ie not knowing wether it is wrong or not is not as i understand a defense in law.
Elton is in my cousins immediate circle of friends and I dont think my cousin would associate with Elton if he were a wrongen................................
2007-09-27 21:59:17 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
just about to ask the same thing.......O.k. your on your computer and you had that image on it. Your partner wals in and see's it. you say its art.....would she believe you? edit did the girl give consent to this photo? no. what will she feel like when sh's older and realises that her mother has shown the world her PRIVATE parts
2007-09-28 04:16:03 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋