Nan Goldin photos seized from Elton John ruled "not indecent"

<p>This is an update to a story that was discussed here once or twice (<a href="http://www.photo.net/

bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00MkCu">link 1</a>, <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-

fetch-msg?msg_id=00MkCu">link 2</a>). Elton John is <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-

fetch-msg?msg_id=009jxR">an avid art collector</a> who owns prints by many renown photographers.

A month ago, a photograph of two girls was <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?

xml=/news/2007/09/25/nbaltic125.xml">seized</a> from a show at the Baltic Modern Art gallery.</p>

 

<p>Today, a <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?

pid=20601088&sid=a0ok43GKnrec&refer=muse"> a report came out</a> (Bloomberg.com), according to

which,</p>

 

<blockquote><p>Elton John's photograph of two girls by Nan Goldin, seized by police from an art

exhibition last month, ``is not an indecent image,'' the BBC said, citing the U.K. Crown Prosecution

Service.</p></blockquote>

 

<p>There's still hope in the justice system then.</p>

There is no single judicial system. What happened in the U.K. does not reflect on what might have happened elsewhere under similar circumstances.

 

The real winner is Nan Goldin. That said I'm happy about the verdict. Now I'll step aside and wait to see how long it takes before some of our more wordy members step forth...

Well read the links about how I feel (not fond of the picture at all) BUT I will go along with NOW it is over. WHEW The question is still HOW does this affect the future. Hmmm

 

(she nods with a sad tone)

 

You are right Emre, there is no single judicial system. What happens one place can get you burned alive another. I do agree with that.

 

I just wonder if more people will start doing more "ART" like this. I was at another SITE checking it out just because a friend was looking at it and I just happen to "LOOK" at what was under the LOCKED pictures and I will be honest SOME of THOSE pictures were not art of some little kids (IMO). So... where do we go from here now. These were of course amature photographers on a photography site that was based off of PN.

 

I guess I am now wondering if we are going to have a bunch of people starting to do "THIS" kind of art. Makes me a bit worried, sorry to say. :(

 

Well at least now Nan can get on with her other art and procceed with her life and I AM happy with that.

I hope artists continue to explore controversial subjects with abandon, especially with the

kind of creative approach and sensibility that Nan Goldin has with all of her work, which

includes much more than just this photograph. In some cases, offending some is a price well

worth paying to say something beyond most of the pablum that is more popular.

<p><i>What happened in the U.K. does not reflect on what might have happened elsewhere

under similar circumstances.</i></p>

 

<p>Of course. I would expect something entirely different to happen in a country like

Iran.</p>

<p><i>The real winner is Nan Goldin.</i></p>

 

<p>More than that, the winners are all the artists who would otherwise be afraid to

explore controversial subjects.</p>

Nope, the real winners are people who want to take pictures of naked children with their legs akimbo. They can now hold up a picture of Klara and Edda Belly Dancing when the police or social services knock on the door, and say "of course my naked kiddie pictures that I'm posting all over the internet aren't indecent, the courts said this one is ok and so mine must be too".

whoops, did I say the other day I'd let it go?

Gee Pete, sad thing is I didn't know the picture was only worth $3,000. All this for a mere $3,000 picture. (sigh) I would have bought the silly picture myself just to have tossed it away. Opps I too said I'd let it go. darn it darn it darn it darn it

 

(sigh)

<p><i>Nope, the real winners are people who want to take pictures of naked children with

their legs akimbo.</i></p>

 

<p>No, the real winner is Pete Millis who now gets to post ignorant remarks like the

above.</p>

Well, for a normal person a knife is something you peel your apple with: for a killer it is the tool of (grisly) work. Same with photographs - people's minds work very different way and may find totally different message in a photo like the one which is a subject of this thread.

 

What the court decided, was that E.J. didn't get his kicks out the picture. Equally obvious is that that they could not get inside E.J.'s head and judged from their own perspective.

 

What this indicates - it is that there is a very thin line between what can be considered "decent" or "indecent", as simply there is no yardstick to measure.

 

What is quite clear, though, is that the images IMHO are of rather doubtful artistic value - and this makes me think that...well, I am not going to get inside anyone's head, the court has already passed the verdict.

"Now I'll step aside and wait to see how long it takes before some of our more wordy members to step forth..."

 

Don't worry Emre, nuff's been said on the matter.

Eugene, for your information, legitimising this image has set a precedent. It has given the message that it would seem that anyone would now be free to take and distribute and possess images explicit images of children, or free to take upskirt shots of kids in Trafalgar Square (I'm sure they would be deemed as less indecent as the kids were wearing underwear). Provided there is no evidence of sexual abuse or activity then it would seem such photographs are acceptable.

 

And furthermore, this image has NOT been found at and court trial to be indecent. The Crown Prosecution Service have decided that there is no point in doing anything as the court will just refer to the precedent that was set in 2001.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

From Reuters:

"Kerrie Bell, head of CPS Northumbria's South Unit, added: "In order to prove that the photograph is indecent we must be satisfied that contemporary standards of propriety are so different now to what they were in 2001, that it is more likely than not that a court will conclude that the photograph is indecent. I am not satisfied that is the case.

 

"Even if the photograph was now considered to be indecent, a defendant would be able to raise a legitimate defence, given that the photograph was distributed for the purposes of display in a contemporary art gallery after having been deemed not to be indecent by the earlier investigation.""

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

So, this is the only defence that some old perv would need - the "legitimate defence" is that the perv's photographs of naked childrens vaginas are not indecent as the Crown Prosecution Service deemed this picture to be not indecent in 2001 so didn't take it to trial, and in 2007 they said that as it didn't go to trial in 2001 then there's no point in trying to take it trial now.

 

So the winners are......not children.

 

I'm a bit disappointed really - it would have been interesting to see how this would have panned out with a court trial and jury consisting of 12 normal members of the population.

oops, re paragraph 2 above, "And furthermore, this image has NOT been found at and court trial to be indecent. " SHOULD READ "And furthermore, this image has NOT been found at a court trial to be not indecent (i.e. decent)".

Pete: CPS decisions not to prosecute don't automatically set any precedent at all, and they

have very definitely not legitimised anything, or indeed sent any of the messages you

suggest, or created any sort of legitimate defence. This is outside their remit. What they

are saying is quite straightforward, merely covering the standards of decency as it affects

the chances of a successful prosecution over _this photo alone_, not about any other

photo. That's all their job is.

 

Of deliberate Trafalgar Square voyeurism, you say: 'Provided there is no evidence of sexual

abuse or activity then it would seem such photographs are acceptable.' You're either

completely misunderstanding or deliberately misrepresenting the way the law on

indecency works. I'm not sure to whom it would 'seem such photographs are acceptable'.

Surely you don't mean the courts?

 

Leszek: "What the court decided, was that E.J. didn't get his kicks out the picture. Equally

obvious is that that they could not get inside E.J.'s head and judged from their own

perspective."

 

Actually, aside from the fact that it wasn't a court decision, it also wasn't about Elton John

at all. It was about the photo.

Michael, what I don't understand though is this...if the CPS have said there is insufficient grounds for a prosecution based on this particular image following the precedent that was set by the 2001 decision, then how can prosecutions be bought on similar images? What would make the chances of prosecution higher if it wasn't this image?

 

Re Trafalgar Square "voyeurism", if someone were arrested with a couple of shots like those taken by that astrophysicist, how can these be deemed any less decent that the NG photo? In neither case has the child given informed consent for the image to be taken so what makes the naked one less indecent than the clothed one? Or is it all to do with intent? And why wouldn't the courts see pictures of innocent children playing in Trafalgar Square just as acceptable as innocent children playing on a kitchen floor?

 

I'd like to understand more how the law on indecency works in these cases - obviously it ain't straight forward!

Yeah, "think of the children!" Give me a break, Peter.

Eugene, why have you put "think of the children" in quotes like that? I never said "think of the children".... did I?

Any road up, feel free to take a break - I'm shutting my gob now like I had meant to before, and will leave it as this: It is clear than some people here see great artistic value in such images and perceive them as decent and harmless, while some see little artistic value and perceive them as indecent and potentially harmful.

 

I've still not had a response to a question on another thread - if you had a daughter of 5 years old, would you be happy for someone to take a picture of her like the NG one under discussion, and publish it? I'm sure many here would find it extremely artful for their kids to be pictured as such, but I don't know how many of those people actually have kids. All irrelevant though seeing as you don't seem to care about that side of it.

Pete: from what I can gather, as far as the CPS is concerned, intent and the prevailing

notion of obscenity is what matters. They don't make or enforce the law, or investigate

under it. As far as I understand their role, their only reason to exist is to provide that

separation in a way which is consistent with the public interest.

 

Beyond that, if you think they aren't acting in the public interest or you want to know why

they think they are, can I suggest you contact them, ask them the questions you asked

above, and come back to this forum with their answers? That would further the discussion

more usefully.

Pete, I would say you have to consider the pictures on an individual basis. I don't like this particular one but I would not call it criminal. I guess the parents didn't mind, otherwise we would have heard from them.

Seems that some "artists" thrive on controversy. For others, "art for its own sake" is good enough.

 

To me, the controversial types are no different than any other political or social iconoclasts who derive pleasure from pushing the envelope. And the mainstream types are no different from any others who prefer the comfort of social boundaries. This conflict has little to do with Art or Photography.

I am totally with Pete, I don't have to say anything more than what I have said before.

 

 

Pete say's it clearly:

"if you had a daughter of 5 years old, would you be happy for someone to take a picture of her like the NG one under discussion, and publish it? I'm sure many here would find it extremely artful for their kids to be pictured as such, but I don't know how many of those people actually have kids."

 

My answer would be OMG no way! not anything against her other art. Just I think for a mere $3,000 I think she is pretty foolish. YEP!

 

I also agree 12 jurors might see things different.

 

Bob, you make a good poing.

 

Now, seems to me we don't need to re hash this whole discussion seems like we allready did this in those other threads.

 

YEP! Pete, I'm with you :)

And, Micki... I'm with YOU! :-)

;)

Same people still in favor of pictures of nude children. They still want acceptance and affirmation and they still won't get it. Even worse they want the "thrill" of controversy but want protection from the consequences. Still no heroes here.