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

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070926/elton_porn_070926/20070926<br>

"A photograph by a controversial American artist which is part of Sir Elton

John's private collection has been seized by police from a gallery on suspicion

it may have breached child pornography laws."<br>

With the discussions of "Art vs Porn" found here I wonder what are the opinions

to something more relevant than the "OMG that's porn" debates that occasionally

arise from the critique forum.<br>

Here we have a respected, acclaimed photographer, Nan Goldin, being investigated

for child pornography over a photo that many would say easily crosses the line.

Yet it "has been widely published and exhibited throughout the world".

Suddenly someone decides it's child porn?<br>

Have you seen this photo? Do you know what all the fuss is about? Do you think

it is ok to take and display photos of children, innocently playing with their

legs spread open and their genitalia exposed?<br>

To me, the answer is an obvious "no". This picture should be burned.<br>

More interestingly to myself, here is a photo by a famous photographer with a

high profile exhibit. What do you think of the technical quality and artistic

merit of this photo? What do you think it would receive in the

aesthetic/originality rating system here on photonet?<br>

Interested to read your responses.

Haven't seen the picture but do not believe in burning witches, especially Nan Goldin.

<p>The photo is available <a href="http://hitsusa.com/blog/140/klara-and-edda-

belly-dancing/">here</a>. Where do you draw the line between art and pornography,

and especially child pornography? I'm not the judge, but I don't see this as displaying or

promoting child pornography. Is it art? That's subjective, and while it's not in my taste, I

don't see any reason to confiscate or prohibit it. If you do this one, where do you draw the

line between a photographer taking these photos and a family member? What happens

if/when "family" photos (exhibitionist or nude) goes on-line to share?

 

<p>I think Nan Goldin has pushed the limits of photography into areas that some see as

pornography or immoral, but I disagree. She's not pushing her work as that, but simply

the capture and presentation of the personal expression of people. And when children

simply like to play or play act, and clothes to them is relative to the playing, should we say

it's inappropriate to make it a part of their history and life with a camera?

 

<p>I think they owe her an apology, and leave the judgement to the viewer. That's my

view.

As a warning, obviously this picture can be viewed by some as child porn, so I am not sure if I recommend clicking this link, but the picture can be seen here:

 

http://www.4debatetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5

 

that being said, I am so unsure of what to think... as a new dad, I can see myself taking this picture of my kids and thinking its cute. I could not see myself selling it or exhibiting it. It fits Nan Goldin's style, and it captures a moment that is funny and cute, to me.

 

I think people that REALLY STRONGLY CARE about whether this is pornography or not might need a serious look in the mirror to see if they are attracted to it or if they have a history that makes them think that way, but for the vast majority of people it probably isnt a big deal.

 

On the other hand, for society at large, with pedophiles and lunatics roaming the earth, maybe this is something that should be kept private and not put on the walls of museums.

 

Do I think Goldin or Elton John should be punished for it? absolutely not. Does that even come close to answering the questions here? I seriously doubt it.

 

Its a good topic to discuss, though...

If you want to walk the line between art and pornography, you have to accept the consequences.

 

Does it matter if the image was shot by a famous photographer and owned by a famous art collector? The real question is if an old guy in a raincoat had taken this in for printing at the local WalMart, would he now have been arrested. My guess is that the answer to that is, yes, he would. The law (even when possibly misguided) should apply equally to all.

 

I don't think there's any doubt that the image could be condsidered to pass the official, legal test for child pornography. It would appear to fall under section2Av as defined here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256----000-.html, depending on just how you define "lascivious".

 

Whether it has been exhibited in the past really doesn't address the issue. If it hasn't come in front of a court, no ruling has been made.

<I> (I) do not believe in burning witches, especially Nan Goldin.</I> <P>

<A HREF = http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/grail/grail-05.htm> in reply to Bruce's comment.</A>

I talked to my wife about this quite a bit and she really put me in my place to a large degree... two things matter that I never really even considered:

 

First, when was this taken? If you judge a photography by the standards of today, instead of the standards of when it originated, you are really making a mistake. If this was pre-internet, pre hypersensitivity to pedophilia and child porn, the entire discussion is almost rendered irrellevant.

 

She used an example of a phychiatrist who essentially emotionally corrupted a baby by giving him no attention. (Watson? Baby Alfred? I don't remember.) His work is barbaric by todays standards, but you have to still value his work because it had relevance then.

 

Second, the context matters. If this was in an exhibition or collection where it fit with the subject matter, where there were many pictures of these girls, or girls like them (to be simplistic) its much less likely to be construed as problematic.

 

When its posted on the internet, years later, by itself, the discussion is skewed right from the beginning...

 

fwiw...

I don't think of it as porn, maybe child exploytation. After seeing some of Nan Goldins' work... I wonder who thinks of this photographer as "respected" or "acclaimed". Looks like nothing but bad snapshots. 2/2

One of the "consequences", after the shot is found to not be legally pornographic, is the addition of 1 if not 2 zeros added to the price of a print. I love her stuff, and for the bother the prices should be raised when it's all over. Like what occurred with Jock's work. If you don't like it, don't look at it or buy it. Period. I don't need "art" dictated or defined for me, thank you.

Thanks for the replies it was interesting to see opinions directly from photographer-type people.<br>

I can't say I agree with the reverse-psychology explanation I've been seeing of "If you think it's bad there must be something wrong with your own head". This just doesn't wash with me, it avoids the issue and answers nothing.<br>

I do agree with a lot of what you guys have said, paraphrased, "should be kept private from pedophiles", "an old guy in a raincoat would have been arrested for this", and certainly "I don't need 'art' dictated or defined for me, thank you" however there are valid reasons for dictating laws.<br>

And yes, context matters. Here we are suddenly seeing this out of the blue without any context or background. How is this photo presented as a part of the whole? What do the other photos in the gallery look like? Innocent childsplay, or naked people going at it? I'm not sure I haven't looked that far.<br>

For me, I can no sooner imagine pointing a camera at a naked child's genitals than I can pointing a gun at a person. It's just wrong to me and truly invasive and purposeless and just plain creepy. Does the viewer really need to see this, as a part of the picture, or is it presented for shock value? And then people say "ah, it's just innocent children playing, you must be a sicko to think otherwise!" Well, yes it's just innocent children playing, but innocent children play doctor, do we need to present graphic pictures of them doing so as a matter of record? Innocent and healthy children masturbate, too, should we be allowed as a society to record these moments and display them on galery walls and photobooks? When do you draw the line and why?<br>

I dunno. As someone who photographs kids as my main subject I'm really shocked and saddened by this and just can't find a way to relate to what the photographer, editor, and all the galleries that presented it were thinking.<br>

"Illegal child porn"? I shouldn't say I'd go that far without knowing more fully the background story, but definitely in my opinion bad taste and sad to see presented. A problem of the photographer's morals and values. imho we, as photographers parents and artists should be helping to protect children rather than seeing how far we can push the limits as this photo suggests.<br>

To each their own, we'll see how it plays out with the authorities as that's where it really matters.<br>

For my second point, regarding the quality of the photo I must say that I like the gritty, real-life feel of this picture, it is not composed especially well, it is not artfully photoshopped, it is not beautifully lit with remarkable tones and highlight. It's real life, real light and would doubtless get horrible ratings on pnet (haha). It enforces to me that the ratings system here is less than useless, since photos of this quality and composition are hanging on gallery walls while 7/7's are sitting here in pnet's database (no offense intended to pnet).<br>

cheers, thanks for the discussion.

FWIW i dont see this photo as child pornography but i do see it as bad taste. As a parent i dont think i would have given consent for it to be published and exposed, and indeed probably would have requested the negative from the photographer. I once took a shot of my 10 year old daughter playing in a pool and when i viewed it on my computer i realized that some part of her private anatomy was exposed. The shot was good in any other sense. I cloned out that part, and kept the shot but i most certainly would not have exposed it on a website where it could be picked up by any one with bad intentions, certainly not before cloning, and this was not as graphic as the picture of Nan Goldin. In this case i think Nan captured the innocence of two little girls playing but she also in my view violated that innocence to a certain extent. Just my two cents.

I fail to understand why any nude human body causes such an uproar especially in the United States. I find absolutely nothing dirty in the display of any nude. Why are people so hung up? (no pun intended)

I don't believe in any type of cenorship whatsoever, anytime, anywhere, no exceptions. Why does this isssue keep recurring: Sally Mann, Jock Sturges, etc. Hey, we are all nude sometime or other, and we all know what the human body looks like except for the unfortunate blind.

I champion the right to expression zealously and reject efforts to restrict photography on so many overstated grounds such as security and morality. This is an exception. An exception based on the inability of the subjects to have any realistic protection from the abuse of others. These are children.

 

This is not an issue of baby lying on a confy towel with its butt showing or a picture taken by a parent of little two year old Suzy with a rubber ducky in a bath for family use.

 

Sorry people but lets get real. We are talking about a picture where the focal point is a young child private parts who is looking up at another child's private parts. While the children may not have been thinking anything sexual, the whole picture is about that. You know it. The photographer knows it. Everyone knows it.

 

"If this was pre-internet, pre hypersensitivity to pedophilia and child porn, the entire discussion is almost rendered irrellevant."

 

Um, no. The temporal aspect is irrelvent. See the paragraph above. Its a sexually charged picture. It was then. It is now. Its being displayed for that reason then and now. That its done in the name of art is irrlevent. Sexually based art is for adults. These children were not able to provide any meaningful consent to be used as they are then AND now. Their parents may have consented but the sexual purpose of the imagery clearly shows any parental consent to be misguided. THe explotation of the children was wrong before "hypersensitivity" existed. Indeed there IS overzealous sensitivity today. I was challanged by a parent when I shot a picture of a local fair ride. I was shooting for the blur caused by the moving lights of the ride and no one could discern any likeness of a child in my images. It was dark too. True, I would not have been challenged like that if I were taking the picture in 1950. Guess what? None of that is relevent because the explotation of the children is explotation of the children then and now whether people are hypersensative today or not.

 

 

"the context matters. If this was in an exhibition or collection where it fit with the subject matter, where there were many pictures of these girls, or girls like them (to be simplistic) its much less likely to be construed as problematic."

 

You have GOT to be kidding. If there's a whole lot of exploitation being shown, its BETTER than if there is only a little bit? Yeah right. Lets have a huge national exhibition where all the images of kid's private parts are the focal point of on display. Everything's fine now.

 

"I don't think of it as porn, maybe child exploytation. After seeing some of Nan Goldins' work... I wonder who thinks of this photographer as "respected" or "acclaimed". Looks like nothing but bad snapshots. 2/2"

 

Very perceptive. Would any attention be given to this person as an "artist" but for the exploitation? Of course not.

 

"If you don't like it, don't look at it or buy it. Period. I don't need "art" dictated or defined for me, thank you."

 

Children aren't able to understand and determine if they "like" being exploited, don't like others to "look at" them being expolited or have any say if people "buy" the product of exploitation. Funny, its just fine if people dictate and define CHILDREN as sexually charged objects but don't tread on you. The imagery may not be of actual sexual acts but you know the imagery has sexual overtones. You're a big man as to your own dignity and freedom from the dictates of others but you have no problem denying it to children.

I agree completely with John Elder. I think the paranoia about nudity is absurd and reflects terribly on our society. People were nude for years without anybody caring or getting excited about it, it's the hiding that turns it into perversion.

"I find absolutely nothing dirty in the display of any nude. Why are people so hung up? (no pun intended) I don't believe in any type of cenorship whatsoever, anytime, anywhere, no exceptions."

 

If an adult purposefully causes a young child to pose for a picture in a sexually suggestive manner or while performing a sexual act or simulation, you have no problem with that?

John Elder, I agree. Other John, keep your hands away from your dirty parts.

People thought Jock Sturges was exploiting children. The Supreme Court says he wasn't. The context were families on the beach in Europe that had no compunction or need to hide their bodies or sexuality. Adults and children there were raised with different values than you're expressing. A local society's moral compass is not a universal dictate. The children's parents made a judgment in this specific case, and it's theirs to make. Projecting your values on others and art says more that is damaging than the photograph itself. You endeavor to make it dirty to support your point. It didn't strike me that way at all. Do you imply that I'm a pervert?

These children were playing. They didn't have the burden of your puritanical judgment. They were playing period.

And what about National Geographic shots that show children's genitalia in primitive societies. Does a sociologic viewpoint change everything.

But don't feel bad John, I'm sure David Vitter and Larry Craig feel as you do. And they're in the position to legislate for you.

"These children were playing. They didn't have the burden of your puritanical judgment."

 

I think we are missing the point here, the question is not whether the kids had any sexual intent (I am absolutely sure they didnt), it's about the fact that their likeness (photo) can be exploited by people with more dubious intents. As i said before i do not think this is child pornography, but i think the photographer has violated the privacy and innocence of young children by publishing it, and i have serious doubts about the judgement of the parents who signed the released form for this photo. Let me ask the defenders of "no censorship" whether they would allow a photographer to publish photos of their young children in similar graphic poses?

Depending on the shot, and the context yes, and I have.

And my children, now in their 20's, love the shots, and they are the noblest, most honest and together kids I know.

"Depending on the shot, and the context yes..."

 

exactly my point. And in this context and this shot, i wouldn't have because I think it is not in particular good taste and i wouldn't want my children, years from now to feel embarassed in a world forum where millions of people can see their private parts exposed in this manner. I'm not a puritain and i believe that it is every one's right to expose themselves in any way they want in a photo or painting, as long as THEY are of age and are capable of taking that decision, and i dont believe these kids were.

We'll have to agree to disagree.