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

[bruce levy]

Hi Pete,

 

Wikipedia:

 

"One can set up a straw man in the following ways:

 

1. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.

2. Quote an opponent's words out of context -- i.e., choose quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy).

3. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.

4. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.

5. Oversimplify a person's argument into a simple analogy, which can then be attacked.

[bruce levy]

"But I can honestly say that if my parents had given consent for a picture of me bending over with my arsehole showing at 5 years old, in a position that could be even remotely construed as saying "come and get me", then I would be seriously wondering about the absence of any parental sensibility or responsibility."

 

Straw man

[bruce levy]

"A few months ago (I'm trying to find the relevant article) a man was arrested in London near trafalgar square. Police were sispicious of him as he was hanging around with a camera where young kids were playing. When they asked him what he was doing he said he was photographing children playing. They siezed his camera and his laptop and found what amounted to a couple of hundred thousand "upskirt" shots of young girls in public. He was basically a perv who got off on these sorts of images and was no doubt sharing them with others."

 

"Would it be ok for a photographer to take and display a photograph of an adult woman with her legs spread without her consent?"

 

"There are parents who are so desperate that they sell their children, there are parents who couldn't give a flying f*ck about the welfare of their kids, there are parents who let their 10 year old kids smoke, there are parents who let abuse of kids by "Uncle Steve" or the "friendly neighbour" go on right under their noses."

 

"Would it be ok or acceptable to publish a spreadeagled picture of a naked woman with alzheimers because her son or daughter who had power of attorney gave consent for it? Would it be ok or acceptable for a picture of a naked downs syndrome bloke exhibiting a stiffy, or a naked downs syndrome girls with her legs spread, to be published because their carer had given consent?"

 

"f I had noticed that bloke I mentioned deliberately taking inappropriate shots of my kids, I can honestly say I would have grabbed his camera and if he had any shots that looked like deliberate attempts at shots of knickers or whatever then I would seriously have given him a good beating, whether he claimed he was doing it for the sake of art or whatever!"

 

"seeming happy to ignore the fact that the police suspicion led to the seizing of half a million indecent images of children."

 

"Isn't it the same with terrorism? There are a lot of people about, some are terrorists but the majority are not. But by being wary and vigilant then some acts of terrorism are prevented. An act of terrorism though, has the potential to affect far more people than just kids and their families - and so the currently inflamed general mood, stoked up by governments and the media, is a great tool for purposes of control. I'll bet there are people here though who, on one hand, would bemoan the restriction of their freedom to take and publish photographs like this example of Goldin's (because it's art), while on the other hand would like to see every single person who sports a beard and wears a turban sent away because they're a potential terrorist."

 

"but I mentioned an old bloke I caught wanking while he was sitting in his car and watching kids at a public park."

 

"How do we know whether the pleasure they derive is a purely innocent enjoyment of the image "

 

"But Goldin has titled her picture "Klara and Edda Belly Dancing" - putting the two together - nakedness and belly dancing - could imply an erotic belly dance rather than just a belly dance. I hear there are clubs with naked belly dancers. Had the girl been wearing knickers then it would still be "Klara and Edda Belly Dancing" but it would also be a photo not worth talking about any further than Mum and Dad showing it to Grandma or whatever then shoving it into a shoebox. If the girl was wearing knickers then would people, Elton John for example, really bother to put a 20 x 30 inch print of it on their wall? If it was titled something less innocent - such as "young naked kid with her legs spread" would it be displayed or seen as a acceptable work of art?"

 

"And for the blokes - would you mind if it was you in the picture lying on your back showing your manhood at 5 years old or whatever? Would you mind if it was one of your kids?"

 

"Do you think the naked genitalia makes it art worth hanging? Do you think it would still be acceptable as a piece of art if the title referred directly to the naked child? Does the belly dancing title make it art? Do you think if someone else took this picture it would be considered as art? Would you allow this picture to be published if it was your daughter for the sake of art and because of your right to give consent for it? Would you know for certain that your daughter would be happy when she became aware of the appeal of this sort of imagery to some people and that you had allowed this to be published in books and hung on walls in the name of art? Do you think the photographer's rights would be more important than your child's rights?"

 

All straw men.

 

I think your penchant for intellectual masturbation is more prominent than the obscenity of the photograph.

[petemillis]

Cheers Bruce....

now then...

"One can set up a straw man in the following ways:

 

1. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.

I HAVE NOT, THAT I'M AWARE OF, PRESENTED A MISREPRESENTATION OF ANYONE'S OPINION

2. Quote an opponent's words out of context -- i.e., choose quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy).

I HAVE NOT QUOTED ANYONE'S WORDS OUT OF CONTEXT. BUT JEFF HAS JUST DONE THAT TO ME TO MAKE IT APPEAR AS IF I WAS TALKING NONSENSE, WHEN HE WOULD HAVE KNOWN FULL WELL WHAT I MEANT.

3. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.

I DON'T THINK I HAVE DONE THAT. ALL I HAVE DONE IS ASKED QUESTIONS, SOUGHT OPINIONS AND STATED MY THOUGHTS.

4. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.

DEFINITELY HAVEN'T DONE THIS

5. Oversimplify a person's argument into a simple analogy, which can then be attacked.

AND I DON'T THINK I'VE OVERSIMPLIFIED ANYONE'S ARGUMENT INTO A SIMPLE ANALOGY

 

(I've only posted my replies to these bits in capitals to differentiate them from the quoted text - I'm not shouting)

 

I've asked valid questions of people who are defending this particular "work of art" but the defenders seem so far unwilling to reply. Is there something wrong with my questions? Are they perhaps too personal when asking for someone's personal thoughts on something?

 

All I want is to better understand the mindset that believes this particular image is acceptable and all that happens seems to be people (Jeff) say that the whole thing is absurd and is only an issue because of people's paranoia about nudity and reflect poorly on society. Of course it's absurd that people are paranoid about nudity, and of course it reflect poorly on society.

 

But the FACT is that some people in our society do have certain perversions when it comes to children. The question is, are the photographer's rights to publish pictures such as this particular one in the name of "art", and that will, without a doubt, appeal to, and be sought by, those with certain perversions relating to children MORE important than the rights of children, and child protection issues. Bear in mind, I'm talking about THIS PARTICULAR picture of Goldin's - not the far more "respectful" work of Sturges that has recently been discussed.

 

And one of my other questions that remains to be answered is this.... Would people hang THIS PARTICULAR PICTURE on their walls, and would it be valuable as a piece of "art", if the girl in the picture did not have her genitalia exposed in the way it is?

 

Bruce, I'm not being argumentative for the sake of arguing - but I am inqusitive about this whole "art" thing. Maybe if I didn't have kids and I had studied art at uni then I might see Goldin's work as wonderful and the other issues wouldn't come into it!

[bruce levy]

"But the FACT is that some people in our society do have certain perversions when it comes to children."

 

That's another one.

 

"Would people hang THIS PARTICULAR PICTURE on their walls, and would it be valuable as a piece of "art", if the girl in the picture did not have her genitalia exposed in the way it is?"

 

Then it wouldn't be that picture, and the discussion would be moot.

 

"Bruce, I'm not being argumentative for the sake of arguing - but I am inqusitive about this whole "art" thing."

 

I understand. No problem.

[bruce levy]

Pete,

 

I also like quite a few of your shots. But you might be unbearable to have a cup of coffee with.

[petemillis]

Bruce, fancy a cup of tea? Be nice to meet up for a chat if you're ever round these parts :)

 

That "That's another one" comment - do you mean that my "But the FACT is that some people in our society do have certain perversions when it comes to children." comment is a bit of a straw man? Would it be different if I referred to specific people by name as opposed to "some people"?

 

And

""Would people hang THIS PARTICULAR PICTURE on their walls, and would it be valuable as a piece of "art", if the girl in the picture did not have her genitalia exposed in the way it is?"

 

Then it wouldn't be that picture, and the discussion would be moot. "

 

OK, fair dunkums. If Goldin took a picture of the girls in the same position, but the naked one was instead dressed in a pair of knickers, then would both pictures be considered as equal pieces of art in their own right? Would both pictures appeal to the same audience and be equally likely to be hung on the walls of the same art connoiseurs? Or is it just the naked genitalia that makes this a "desireable piece of art"? Is it the notoriety or popularity of Goldin's work that makes people want it regardless of whether it is artful or not? Is it the thought of having something "naughty" or "illicit" hanging on the wall and knowing it will spark reactions? Or is it simply because this one picture is part of a series and people like to have the full set? (and they need to have the full set of something in the absence of a full set of marbles :) - just joshing I assure you!)

 

I know Elton John bought the collection in 1999, and that this is the only picture that is under discussion. But how does this picture sit alongside the others that depict drug taking, masturbation, and so on? It almost seems to be, from what I have read, a series depicting sleaziness and filth and squalor - how does this picture fit in with that? Why is this picture part of that series? What is the message?

 

Goldin took the picture in 1998 so the girl on the floor would have been what - 6 years old maybe? She'll be 14 now - it would be fantastic to know how she is reacting to this at the moment.

[Norma Desmond]

Pete--

 

I think the question is deeper than what you've boiled it down to. But I'll take a stab at

your last formulation, which puts heavy emphasis on the fact that people have perversions

who might look at such photos and act on them in ways we don't like.

 

Punish the pervert who acts on his perversions in a way that harms someone else.

 

Society should not base its morality or laws on those who act immoraly or illegally.

 

There are many guys who will be pervertedly looking even at the most "tasteful" (whatever

that means!) art nude of a woman. It will induce some to masturbate, some to masturbate

in public, and some possibly to rape women. We must, as a society, do everything in our

power (more than we are doing) to prevent rape. Do we ban all nude photos? Belive me,

there are many who believe we should.

 

Many a bad idea was put in or highlighted in the mind's of criminals who may have

watched The Sopranos. What then?

 

The photographer's rights of course exceed the rights of criminals who will misuse the

photographer's images.

 

The only valid question regards the rights and best interests of the children involved and

that is a different matter, one well worth considering. That the parents have given

permission should go a long way in answering the question, but it is not the only

consideration. There is also intent and provable harm. Many factors should be considered

thoughtfully, not emotionally. I am personally perplexed by this particular case, think it

may cross a line, think it may do so intentionally, and think there needs to be much sane

discussion about it.

 

Complex problems don't have simple solutions. This one involves nudity, child rights,

parental rights, freedom of speech, responsibility for the actions of others, possible

cultural differences, perceptions about art, the undefined nature of pornography, and

much more. The most immoral thing to do, in my mind, is to make quick and easy black

and white moral decisions on matters that are more complicated than we'd like to admit.

[mvisionphotography]

If I remember right the difference between Playboy was they didn't show the CROTCH shot as you put it and PENTHOUSE did. Well, honestly I don't look at them now but someone correct me about that back when they started out. I consider that going over the top. As for being innocent I don't think it goes over the top as being don't wrong but I sure wouldn't have a camera out to take a picture of my child doing that NOR would I even let my child go around the house naked.

 

Here is the better question. Is it even a good photo?

 

Why would one want a photo of two girls who look like they live next door who's parents can't dress them who are just playing around? By TAKING this photo away we now have caused more publicity for this photo than ever dreamed possible. YEAH! SO NOW everyone is going to look at it. YEAH to the pervert.

 

I like Fred am perplexed. I don't understand this one at all. Kind of wondering about Sir JOHN more than anything. :(

[petemillis]

Fred, many thanks for your input. I agree with what you're saying about making quick and easy black and white decisions on complicated matters like this one. And of course the photographers's rights exceed the right's of criminal who will misuse his images. But something feels really awkward. In this case the photographer is supplying something that could be seen as overtly provocative and clearly appealing to those who we want to protect our children from.

 

And what should society base its morals and laws on? If it wasn't for the need to deal with those who act immorally or illegally then would we need law? Shouldn't they be based on the lowest form of life - those who act immorally or illegally (of course if there were no laws then none of us would be acting illegally whatever we did, and it would all boil down to what is morally acceptable).

 

I dunno mate - my head hurts at the moment and I need some wine and a rest from thinking for a wee while. This whole thing has really gto to me a bit, and I'm certain that it's due to close exposure to the bloke in the park watching the kids! I never had such a distrust before of old blokes... I'll check in here in the moro after I've spent the evening entertaining my better half with witty conversation :)

 

Pete

[petemillis]

Micki, I've just seen a web site discussing Sir Elton John and it shows a picture of him, with a stamp across saying "no longer on my list of top babysitters"! Cruel maybe, but I couldn't help but chuckle - gawd bless him.

[mvisionphotography]

lol ~ ok, I just laughed. Thanks, His and Michael Jackson. Just went and crossed them both off. :)

[Norma Desmond]

Society should base its morals and laws on what it feels will be the best for the greatest

amount of people, on what it feels will make society run the most smoothly and

harmoniously, among a myriad of other considerations. Great ethicists are now including

holistic approaches to morality that consider the environment and communities and

ecosystems as having established rights, not only individuals. The need to deal with those

who act illegally is more about punishment than it is about law. Law pertains mostly to

people who follow it.

 

You repeat the assertion that "the photographer is supplying something that could be seen

as overtly provocative and clearly appealing to those who we want to protect our children

from." The key phrase is "could be seen" and the key concept is that it's not appealing

exclusively to those who would harm children. It's appealing to many in the art world,

many who have bought Nan's books, many who attend galleries and museums, and the

darling Sir Elton John. I again say that the criminal's potential deeds are secondary to the

rights of

law-abiding citizens. If you could prove that Nan Goldin was personally or in some sort of

conspiracy intentionally trying to incite pedophiles to acts of harm, you'd be on much

more solid ground. When you can prove that acts of harm have been perpetrated, lock the

perpetrators up.

 

There are too many wonderful things in this world that have the potential to be abused,

used the wrong way, misunderstood, disrespected, lead to unfortunate actions. Do we ban

demonstrations because they often provoke the police and lead to violence or do we deal

with the acts of violence individually?

[john_macpherson]

Pete, Pete - hope the wine has mellowed you a little!

 

Quote "never had such a distrust before of old blokes.."

 

Not a good statement. Why should one person's actions sully the reputation of everyone else?

 

As you said yourself in your second-from-last post "I agree with what you're saying about making quick and easy black and white decisions on complicated matters like this one"

 

Fact is, there's a lot of old blokes contributing here and many have cameras! Give us a break eh!

[john_elder1]

Many people here, ( and I admit I haven't read the entire thread ) are confusing acts with photographs of acts. The two are different. For example, it is illegal to murder someone in cold blood in the middle of the street. It is perfectly legal to photograph that murder and publish it. Larry Clark's work: Tulsa is an example. It sure was illegal to shoot heroin, but it was not illegal to photograph the event. Gassing people during the Holocaust was a war crime: photographs, documents of those horrific events are not crimes. All sexual molestation of a child is and should be illegal, including tha act of taking a photograph if that is part of the molestation. However, regardless of how gruesome, having possession, publishing , or viewing these digusting events by looking at a photograph is censorship. The guy taking pictures up dresses without consent should be prosecuted, the person putting his pictures on the wall shouldn't be. The act is different than the photograph. Another extreme example. Some cruel bastard makes a real snuff film. He should be prosecuted for murder. Being totally against censorship, I believe that anybody who wants to look at that sick film should be able to. People should not be prosecuted for what they think, see, believe. or write, regardless of how sick it might be. People should only be prosecuted for what they do.

[john_elder1]

By the way, for those who don't know, the US Constituion was written with the intent to protect Minority Rights from an overpowering Majority. So, in the above debate, it ain't an election. The majoritty opinion does not rule the day. Hence the Supreme Ct decision re Jock Sturge. I don't have to like the content of a photograph, to argue and defend the right of someone else to publish it or view it. Example: I hate the philosphy(if you can call it that ) of the KKK, but many US Citizens have died for the freedom of expression the KKK and all of are supposed to enjoy.

[john_elder1]

My 4:57 post should be prohibiting posession, not " having possession"

[petemillis]

John Elder - taking, purchasing, distributing or possessing an "indecent" image of a minor is a crime in this country under the child protection act. To take, purchase, distribute or possess such an image is something that people "do" - it is not a passive thing. As it's something they "do" then it's something they should be prosecuted for. The law in the UK is quite clear on this. I think what it's going to boil down to is the interpretation of the term "indecent" (i.e. is the Klara And Edda image in any way indecent?) and whether Elton John can swing any case in his favour if he is charged.

 

John MacPherson - my head feels mellower and I have calmed down a bit. I know the actions of one shouldn't sully the reputation of all others. I'm letting all the old fellas off the hook now, you'll be pleased to know, except those who drive silver Vauxhall Corsas and have their hair cut in a certain local barbers shop!

[mvisionphotography]

I agree with what you are saying Fred. She isn't out their supposedly "personally or in some sort of conspiracy intentionally trying to incite pedophiles to acts of harm, you'd be on much more solid ground".

 

 

What I don't get is that the kids were intentionally set up. Some kids were half naked some fully naked. If you look there is a BIG bra that one of the kid is playing with. It is a set up look.

 

 

Takes me back to what I remember called "NASTY PLAY".

Any psychologist would tell you that repressed memory of this "NASTY PLAY" could cause harm on a child. They could, some of them later on remember this as a sexually dysfunctional play. This could cause them later on in life a fear of intimacy by "playing with others" like this.

It is NOT natural for kids like this over a certain age to play along this line.

 

 

To have GROWN UPS in the room encouraging it while they are naked (I looked at it more closer) is NOT acceptable from a psychological standpoint, If I were one of these kids parents I would be traumatized myself that my child was all over the Internet and news.

 

 

Again, this is beyond the realms of "IS IT RIGHT" to photograph it. It is in the realms of did it or is it harming the kids?

 

Sorry, that is something I studied while going to college for Psychology degree. But that was back in the 80's. Maybe things have changed in 20 years and now letting kids that are five and six naked and playing around with adults bra's and such dancing while people take picture is acceptable.

 

Maybe they do this in Pre-School now. Sorry, I still think it is a BAD picture but now I'm starting to think about these children that are going to have to live the rest of their lives with this picture over their head. How wrong is that!

[john_elder1]

Pete, indecent is not the trigger for being criminal conduct, it must be "lascivious" under the US Code. To further complicate the issue when the US Code was amended, the word "lascivious" replaced the word "lewd" in the Code.Big diference? Opinions of what are "INDECENT" are as numerous as there are people and that is one of the points I was making. This picture is not in any significant way different than what Sally Mann and Jock Sturges has published. So Pete, in my above examples you would prosecute the photograher documenting the murder?Why shoud sexual content be different? In one sense you have misread my posts. It is my political philosophy that there should be no censorship whatsoever. Clearly that is not the law, but it should be the law.

[mike_stemberg]

Here is Elton John's and the BBC's take (and other material) on this issue:<br>Link:

<b>

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7016651.stm"> What's the difference between art and porn? </a></b>

[sprouty]

The belief that a universal standard can be applied to anything is the surest sign of an ignorant mind.

[mvisionphotography]

aha sp, you have a very valid point.

 

IF there was a universal standard then someone would eventually come in here and tell US what we should actually "THINK" about that picture. If I am correct.

 

That is not what I would want.

 

I want that freedom.

 

Yes, I do know this is double talk. But, I do believe their are standards and I think I have made myself clear from the point of view from the childs point of mind BUT, as far as MY OPINIONS go. I think I should have the right to always speak freely and say my peace. Not here, but elsewhere. Here I feel I have been treated well.

 

I think that there SHOULD be freedom of expression our there in the ART WORLD. THAT is where I get all confused and distorted and am clueless myself. Oh the headache one gets when trying to think to much! I just know I do not like "THAT" picture. Is there something wrong with me? I do know that I am not ignorant for that. Nope, that is the protective side of me, the mothering side. Sorry, I just can't see eye to eye with the art in that and yet I can pretty much see the art lots of the other "ARTISTIC" nude artists named here.

 

hmmm, perplexing. My wish is that is that I didn't know about this story, what good could my worry be? (sigh)

[sprouty]

<i>"Sorry, I just can't see eye to eye with the art in that and yet I can pretty much see the art lots of the other "ARTISTIC" nude artists named here."</I>

<P>

You can start by realizing that the image in question isn't an "artistic" nude. And in fact has absolutely nothing to do with Jock Sturges or his work.

<P>

All things in context.

[papasan]

"My wish is that is that I didn't know about this story, what good could my worry be"

 

"that is not for us to decide, all we can decide is what we do with the time that is given us" Tolkien (LoR) Gandalf to Frodo

 

I didn't think i would get back into this discussion but for what it's worth. I agree with you Micki as i think i have made it clear earlier that the right, privacy and innocence of the children should be protected indeed promoted at all cost. It's but natural to feel protective towards the more vulnerable segment of our society. I think it is one of the characteristics that set us appart from other species who do just the opposite and eliminate the weakests. Would i give up my freedom of speech and expression for terrorists, or activists? never. But i would gladly sacrifice it if it meant that by exercising it, i could possibly hurt a child or someone who is vulnerable. But maybe that is just me