Nan Goldin, Klara and Edda, Elton John and the Authorities

A thought I had, maybe Nan can get Elton to pose naked for the world; same pose as same said image in question with a family member of his. Maybe Nan and Elton can be the subject matter in the light of Cindy Sherman's earlier efforts. Very Postmodern. Shouldn't be too hard, as after all, it's both art and being done in innocents with "consenting" adults. :)

If the moderator is going to leave your comment:

<P>

<I>"You said that you are "happy" that an audience is able view pictures of children who have their private sexual parts displayed..."</I>

<P>

<I>"So arty friends could talk about it. Isn't that special."</I>

<P>

Since this is such a gross lie, I should at least be allowed to point out that you don't even realize that I was paraphrasing Pete Millis:

<P>

Pete Millisphoto.net patron, Oct 01, 2007; 08:43 a.m.

<P>

<I>"...stick it on the wall of a gallery, sell big 20x30 prints of it to men and women to stick on the walls of their houses so they can stand around with their arty friends talking about it?"</I>

<P>

And also that I'm not "happy" the image was taken, I'm not "happy" that it was displayed. In fact I don't personally support this type of work. But Nan Goldin obviously does (or at least did), so if it is ultimately determined to be a piece of "art" as opposed to a piece of pornography, then it would be best seen in a gallery.

<P>

Enough on this already, OK?

You have been permitted to defend your position all along SP. Your use of name calling type insults was not. Pete asked this question...

 

"Would you be happy to show the "unedited" version of it to your 5 or 6 or 10 year old (or whatever) daughter and ask her if she would be happy for Goldin to take a picture of her like that and stick it in a book, stick it on the wall of a gallery, sell big 20x30 prints of it to men and women to stick on the walls of their houses so they can stand around with their arty friends talking about it?"

 

Here is your complete answer...

 

"I'll also answer your question directly: I probably would not have taken the image and displayed it in public. But my personal beliefs, as stated above, allow for the concept that Nan Goldin could have felt it was appropriate and that it would cause no lasting harm to her child. Also with respect to the image as taken, if it were printed 20x30 and displayed in a gallery, so arty friends could talk about it, I'd be at least happy that is was being viewed by the audience the artist intended it for."

 

A question was asked and you answered it. In fact you said you were answering the question "directly". You indicated that you would probably not have shot and displayed the image in question but added that you would be "at least happy that it was being viewed by the audience the artist intended it for". It is not my fault that you chose to answer Pete's question in this way.

 

Now that you report that you are not happy that the image is shot or displayed and do not support this type of work, we are in agreement.

If it ain't a two-way street, then it's a one-way street.

 

A little bit of Devil's Advocate, shoe flipping if you will, in my below.

 

A thought, would one consider this sort of imagery to be so artistically comfortable if the identical images were made by a local female elementary art teacher whom you see at parent/teacher conferences, discussing your children's behavior at school? How about if a female judge who sits the bench, a female constables who rides your city's patrol cars, or maybe the local female politician who sits city councils? Would you feel comfortable knowing these same respected individuals were making home based images, for public display (consumption) in the local museum, of their children? After all, the images are being made in the privacy of their home, of their children, at the innocents of their very own hands. Where's the rub?

 

Isn't this really nothing more than inartistically hiding behind the veil of artistic freedom; taking advantage of others, more vulnerable then they, for no purpose other than notoriety? How about I gain your trust and then violate it, in a manner that makes you feel violated? Would you be so comfortable then?

 

What artistic good comes out of imagery of this sort? What benefit is bestowed on society at large? What societal evils are children being protected from by this sort of exposure; the making and displaying of this sort of imagery?

 

There's clearly a double standard at play here which begs to be openly addressed but strangely, this double standard is left out in the cold, conveniently, obviously and selfishly ignored. If only the noted artist, in the name of art can do it, but local female Jr. High School teachers, in innocents, can't, then it's clearly a double standard. If an artist is allowed (encouragement) to create these sorts of images without worry of legal complications, than anybody (guy or gal) should be able to do the same said thing with their children, for same said purpose, without fear of retribution as after all, it's now being done in the name of "ART" and there's no subterfuge to the creation of this sort of family related imagery; how cute.

 

The Devil's Advocate submits that if it's okay for artists such as Nan to make and publicly display images of this sort, of her children, then reasonably it's okay for anybody, to make images of this kind, for any reason as why should one stop and sacrifice,... only at the sacred alter of "ART?"

 

Myself? My position? I think what Nan did was wrong? Why? She willfully, using art as her protective cover, violated her parental responsibility to protect her child from all forms of abuse and violation. She failed to protect her children from both "herself" and the prying eyes of others by violating the parental sacred trust (her position of parental authority as trusted insider) as "nobody" would consider this to be an acceptable form of image making if images of this kind were made by any other forum of respected authority; teacher, clergy, doctor, lawyer, cop, judge or city council member. Lord knows the current number of violations taking place of children at the hands of many, including that of clergy and I'm supposed, to overlook this violation, in the name of art?

 

A final thought on my above; the next chapter of what comes of the acceptance of Nan. Would you like your young, budding, female art student, babysitting and making images of your daughters, in the name of art, in the style of Nan, for museum display, of your children? After all, she's only acting out that what she's being taught is okay, in the name of art, in art school. To defend Nan's behavior is to defend and encourage all other's behavior; a two-way street.

Thomas, for all points above, are you specifically referring to Nan Goldin? Or are you speaking to the larger topic of nude children, i.e. Sally Mann, Jock Sturges, National Geographic "indigenous people" (for lack of a better phrase), nudist colony group portraits, etc.

 

How far do your objections reach? In other words is it clearly this image that crosses the line or is there simply no line at all.

The comments are referring both to Nan and Co., as well as any unmentioned individuals in regard to respecting the privacy of a child's world in regard to intentionally inflammatory images.

 

As to National Geographic (NG), I submit, that it's a bit hard to document a group of adults in any environment who socially habituate, sans cloths but I don't recall NG posting any intentionally graphic images such as Nan likes to intentionally (with social awareness) create for purpose of public display

 

"How far do your objections reach? In other words is it clearly this image that crosses the line or is there simply no line at all."

 

It's patently clear the image in question "intended" to cross the line. Many artists don't feel a need to tone their sensibilities down and through their behavior shows their need to be both offensive and to continually escalate (pushing of societal boundaries) the noise level of their offensive behavior. They feel their "right" trumps all others as it doesn't matter to them what others think; spoiled childlike thinking as it's all about them. Why would I say this? Because there's no social benefit to images of this image other than to cause an expected ruckus.

Thomas and sp

 

In my trips to Asia i often come across children playing naked or partly naked in the streets, or near a water body for instance. For some it's simply that they dont have any clothes to wear, and for others nudity is just not a concern it's just natural. In many cases i have the opportunity to take pictures of those children, and it is often tempting to try to capture the innocence of these children, but i always abstain. I must confess that i abstain partly because I realize that in these days and age, a 50+ year-old pointing a camera at a young naked child may raise suspicions, however innocent his intentions may be, and partly because of modesty on my part. In most cases, I dont think the children would object, or their parents for that matter, because they consider this completely natural, but coming from a western society, i personally feel uncomfortable with the idea of taking pictures of naked children and it has nothing to do with sexuality. The point i'm trying to make is that social and moral standards are as much in the make up of the photographer as they are in the subject. Even if the subject has no objection, the photographer may decide that it crosses the line of his own morality however subjective that is.

 

For me Nan's photo crosses the line of decency, i have said before i don't think it's pornographic, because i'm sure the kids were just having a good innocent fun, but i find it "indecent" because Nan in my view violated, probably intentionally, their privacy and innocence and hence their trust by taking and sharing that picture.

"In my trips to Asia i often come across children playing naked or partly naked in the streets, or near a water body for instance. For some it's simply that they dont have any clothes to wear, and for others nudity is just not a concern it's just natural."

 

I too have visited Asia and seen the scenes you write of. Abject poverty is the reason for the children's nakedness, something most here in the US can't understand. In Asia (Philippines/Singapore), I "never" saw publicly, children naked in monied street based environments. This public nakedness was solely restricted to areas of extreme abject poverty where I had children begging for the uneaten food from my outdoor restaurant table setting.

 

I did see nakedness on the streets of Hong Kong and Kowloon in the case of one and two year olds but for reason, no diapers; they did have T-shirts and shoes on. I do see children, two and three years old, playing in the protection of backyard enclosures without clothes but not running the streets. I see this here in the US and sometimes at the local beach I might go to, with parents present but nobody is taking graphic pics of sexual areas for display in the local MoMa. In fact it's illegal to take sneek pic style photography of children, even though in public. This day and age, I'd be afraid to walk by a park with children at play and a camera innocently over my shoulder. :)

 

I see no societal benefit to this need of Nan and Co. to intentionally invade children's (including teenagers) sexual innocents as no public good is served other than for their own personal satisfaction. The purpose of these societal taboos (minor vs adult) are for good reason, protecting from violation, a child's innocents. How far does one feel, pushing this need to violate the sexual privacy of a child? What overall good is served by promoting this blatant and selfish violation as it's not the child who's being served here? Nan knew what buttons she'd be pushing when she went public with these images of her's under the protective aegis of "artistic freedom."

 

There will be plenty of time for a child to decide how public they wish their behavior to become, when they come of legal age and can make these decisions for themselves, with knowledge of the ramifications of doing so. It's one thing to give something away, with knowledge, it's another when it's flat out stolen, without knowledge or permission. One needs to challenge this "need" to hurry the violation of a child's privacy. Why? What's the hurry here? Who benefits as it surely isn't the child.

 

I would like to read why a child's "need/right" to privacy, shouldn't be respected and protected. I would like to read why a parent should be able to violate a child in this manner when legally, this same said parent, making same said images would need a release signed if the child were eighteen (even though still the parent's child) and the images being made under identical conditions. Just because you're a parent and it's your child (the child isn't property), doesn't make it legal or moral as the child has legal rights to privacy that the parent is legally responsible for protecting.

 

The need to protect the child by both parents and the courts trumps the parent's need to make these sorts of images. I do hope the courts are reading what I write as parents and courts have an obligation to protect a child, who can't protect themselves (vulnerable), from this sort of invasive and exploitive behavior.