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

[Norma Desmond]

Reality check, everyone. We Americans are part of a society that allows many, many, many

of its children to live in rat-infested homes, see their public education going down the

toilet, and live under accepted levels of poverty. I am a city dweller who walks by children

living on the street with parents daily. My guess would be that way more than 50 per cent

of our population would vote to ban Nan Goldin's photographs (in the name of protecting

children) if given the opportunity, yet approximately half of the people who voted in this

country voted for the man who is about to veto away the health insurance of 4 million

children. The outrage on this board could be considered misplaced. It's great to talk about

sacrifice. Lots of people lately have said they'd sacrifice free speech for children or privacy

rights in order to catch terrorists. How many would sacrifice their damn SUVs so there

would be more heating oil for the children who are naked because their mom's can't afford

clothes?

[papasan]

Fred because thousands of children are suffering is not a reason to ignore the rights of a few. There are millions of children in the world who are dying or suffering from malnutrition, abuse, slavery, and more. By comparison, even the poorest children in your country are better off by their standards, should we then ignore them? of course not. In fact protecting these children starts with protecting the few.

[mvisionphotography]

I'll be honest I am very ignorant when it comes to lots of political stuff but what I have done is been to MANY other countries and seen poverty.

 

 

I have been to HAITI, Mexico, many places in EUROPE and AISIA where they do NOT have the health care that we have. I can not even tell you what they do with their kids there in several instances. I have stories that would take months to tell you. But, in a nut shell I will bring it home for you. Just two years ago, I spent a day in a hospital (small clinic) in JAPAN that would NOT have passed the OSHA standards for a PET CLINIC here in the US. I was in Tokyo and a friend of mine dislocated their shoulder.

 

 

 

Regardless what is before who are wherever. Other countries out there have to be on a waiting list for months just to have simple procedures like leg amputated. "WE" the military had to wait in line for those simple proceeded like MRI'S that we here in the US could have gotten done today. Sometimes wait for a month over there for a brain mri. There are no easy answers for the health care system right now but I do know socialized medicine is not it.

I just know several people who were put on the back burner because of this "SYSTEM" in Japan who had life threatening illnesses.

 

 

Here is an example of another country and the suffereing they have:

China ~ over one million girls are put to death (estimated) JUST because they are born FEMALE.

 

 

 

This picture is not about US as a society or what politicians are doing to us. We live really really good. The people on the streets live better than the people in other countries. Sorry, but they do.

 

 

We live in a country of ME ME ME. All of us are one paycheck away from living on the street. Sad isn't it.

 

 

But, this forum question isn't about that is it. It is about that silly picture.

 

 

I think it would get 1's.

Bad lighting, yucky color. AND terrible taste. PERIOD! not to mention I would turn it in as an abuse. THERE you go!

 

 

:( Now to go look up a silly bill that the president is going to maybe sign that you know is going to be vetoed (yes, I live in the dark since I don't listen to the news).

 

And, well you know we are a one car family (we actually DID sell our SUV) and I have worked with RED CROSS. I understand.

[Norma Desmond]

Michael/Micki--

<p><p>

Reasonable responses to a bit of a tirade by me.

<p><p>

What upsets me is that I think that society tends to get more outraged by nudity/sexual

issues than it does other things. I am constantly hearing morality, by both democrats and

republicans, reduced to sex. Homosexual marriage is immoral but voting to lessen

veteran's benefits is practical, not a moral question. Homelessness is a matter of "personal

responsibility" not morality but nudity on beaches and at street fairs is a moral issue

worthy of public sanctions.

<p><p>

Yes, I want children protected. But how many children are photographed in a clearly

harmful way and how many children go hungry (in the world if not in the U.S.)?

<p><p>

The "immorality" of Britney Spears is known to most while an intelligent woman has to go

look up the bill Bush is about to veto.

<p><p>

It's easy to say this photograph is porn (I'm not even disagreeing with that). It's more

difficult to say that the war we are currently fighting is a lot more clearly pornographic.

This photo has the potential to harm and may already have harmed the two innocent

children. And in the same time it took Nan Goldin to create a bunch of photos for an

exhibition, we've killed thousand of Iraqui children for no reason and sent home our own

dead kids in unphotographed and basically ignored caskets.

<p><p>

Has there been as passionate a thread about the ban on photographs of soldier's caskets

and funerals as this thread has been? I just have to wonder why sex gets so much

attention and other immoral matters go by relatively unnoticed.

<p><p>

But, again, you guys are right in basically reminding me that two wrongs don't make a

right and that we can't solve everything, which doesn't mean we shouldn't address

whatever important matters we can. There will always be something worse to be outraged

about, but that doesn't mean we can't concern ourselves about those things we're closest

to and best suited to care about.

[papasan]

Fred, I truly share your outrage for many of the immoral things that are happening in our world. I was for a number of years the president of a small NGO in the Philippines who was trying to help street children. I have seen during that time some of the worse sides of humanity in the way we sometimes treat our most precious possessions. And at the end i learned more from these unfortunate and vulnerable children about the value of life as i have learned from most adults i have encountered in all my years. I also learned that you cannot save the world but if you can make a dent in one or two people's life there will be a ripple effect as they will likely do the same to others in their lifetime and so on and so forth. Hence my earlier comment that i truly feel that the the protection of the collective must start and will depend on our ability to care and protect the few. Regards - michel

[papasan]

Also, i want to add that i do realize that in view of my involvement with street children and the abuse and misery i have witnessed with these children, i am likely to react more emotionally and protectively as opposed to logically to some of those issues. I make no apologies for that, and i think that whoever wants to raise the flag of freedom of speach and expression when it involves protection of children should "walk a mile in my shoes" so to speak and see and experience first hand the impact that what us "reasonable" adults can have through our actions with children.

[petemillis]

John Elder "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"

 

John, this is taking place in the UK and any case regarding the possession of this picture will therefore come under UK jurisdiction. The relevant part of The Protection of Children Act is as follows:

 

"The Protection of Children Act was updated to bring it into the computer age by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994. The amended law makes it illegal for anyone to:

 

* take, or permit to be taken, or to make any indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child; or

* distribute or show such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs; or

* have in his possession such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs, with a view to their being distributed or shown by himself or others; or

* publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs, or intends to do so.

 

Children include those under the age of 16 and those giving the impression that they are under 16."

 

That's why I say it will all depend on the definition of the term "indecent". The photograph is clear not "child pornography" as it is not a depiction or representation of any kind of sex act or sexual abuse. But it is "decent"?

 

Re your "straw man" argument about a photographer photographing a murder - obciously the photographer has done nothing illegal unless he is involved in the murder. There have been very recent cases over here that started off as "happy slapping" where a kid would film his mates slapping people as they ran past them. It has escalated to an extent where a while ago a kid filmed his mates putting cardboard boxes around a bloke who was drunk and fallen asleep in a bus shetler, and they set light to him. So are we saying that the person filming is innocent of any crime as all he is doing is recording the crime taking place?

 

The case here, regardless, concerning the Klara and Edda picture is a completely different kettle of fish. There is absolutely no depiction of an illegal act taking place. It is completely legal for two girls to be playing like this. But it is illegal to take/make and distribute indecent images of children, and it is illegal to possess indecent images of children. If the photograph had been taken in the UK, and was deemed to be indecent, then Goldin could potentially be charged here with taking or making, and distributing, an indecent image of a child. Elton John's "crime", if the picture is deemed to be indecent, is "possession of an indecent image of a child".

 

Now you, I think it was... but can't remember, stated that possession shouldn't be an offence as the person who possesses the image hasn't done anything illegal. Well, if the Klara and Edda picture had been planted in Elton John's house, and he didn't know it was there, and the courts accepted he was unaware it was there, then while he still possessed the image (i.e. it is in hiw house), I think people would accept that he didn't seek to possess it or whatever. As it is, it is an image he had on display in his house, he knew what the image was, he has admitted he bought the image, he loaned it to the gallery to display - he there could be charged with possession of an indecent image of a child. And remember, the fact that he bought the picture creates a market for this sort of picture - all very well if it's not indecent, but where to draw the line? And what is so wrong about trying to protect children in this way?

 

Oh for the days that Jeff harks back to, when we could all run around naked flashing our bits off and there was not a single pervert in the world. It would be so much simpler. That was back when society looked after itself, and if someone did something wrong like raped someone, or stood there getting off on one while looking at yer kid, then they could be dealt with appropriately - swift whack over the head with a rock then into the cooking pot! Trouble is, in modern society it seems everyone is shut away in their own little world and nobody really knows who is doing what to whom. It's a shame and I don't like it.

[petemillis]

Fred "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."

 

I fully agree with this belief. But the problem I see is as I stated in the last paragraph of my post before this one I'm writing at the moment. It's like someone can do whatever they want as long as nobody knows. So much is done now behind closed doors that I don't understand how society can deal with it and mete out punishment. Surely some laws need to be in place to permit the investigation of wrong doing? Or do we investigate and gather any evidence of wrong doing based on whether someone is doing something morally wrong, and then make any judgement as to whether what they have done is morally wrong, and what punishment fits, based on that? All I'm trying to understand is how it would work. Some laws seem quite cut and dry - to rape someone is an offence in law, and is something that is morally wrong. People who don't rape others will be on one side of the law, and those who do will be on the other. If the "thin blue line" isn't there, then how does society decide the exten to which the person has acted immorally?

 

I'm confusing myself now and will come back to this later. Time for a cup of tea....

[john_elder1]

Didn't realize it was in the UK. In the UK, they will hang everybody involved. Oh well, Elton John has already produced his best music and I never really liked Nan Golden. Such is death.

[mvisionphotography]

Fred, no harm done here by what you said. I totally understood. In fact since I don't have TV (worthless in my view), I don't get to see the Britney Spears crap that is going on and am very happy without it affecting my day to day life.

 

 

I will say this. The lower class, needing assistance, on the edge, people that are out there that would be affected by ay kind of transition in health care with the income of less than $20,000 a year (per family). "IS" the joke (in my opinion), or hidden joke of that picture. You don't see it as a picture of high class kids running around.

 

 

I have spent the last 18 years as a military wife. I don't keep that on the silent side. I see family members that can barely (yes BARELY) clothe their children of three that make less than $25,000 a year as they are just four years in the military service with four small kids and smokers and drinkers and well, not very smart. The military is filled with many different levels of income. Many different kinds of people just like society.

 

 

Well, I consider that picture to be a slam on one sort of society (in my opinion of course). Those kids that's parents would let them run around naked and play like that. The YOUNG Britney Spears if you would. You hit it for me when you said that. Why not, it's all out there in the world today on TV and media. Ok, the SOUTHERN, white trash, trailer raised redneck wasp mentality. I can say that because I fall into this category. I live in the southern town of Pensacola, I'm from Texas, I'm WHITE, my dad was in the Military, I'm a Christian (ha a wasp), and gee I KNOW my parents have pictures of ME running around in my undies at the lake when I was little. I'm sure of it. So YES, I saw that picture and it hit a NERVE! I saw half the people in my church, my neighborhood, in the trailer park, at the Walmart, my whole heart crumbled because I saw half the people I tried to help get OUT OF A WHOLE they were in because I'm sure they were given money to let their kids play naked. SAD

That is all.

 

 

Now you said, Homosexual marriage is immoral but voting to lessen veteran's benefits is practical, not a moral question.

I disagree. This is where I am pretty strong about. You might be stunned.

 

Homosexual (in my view) is not immoral. Morality? "The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct". I can't say that. Who tells you what is right or wrong good conduct? I know considering what we are talking about (the picture) this is a wrong thing to say.

 

 

I believe that there is love, immoral comes from perversion.

See, I think homosexuality should be able to function in the military. Well it is there already, my husband has worked with many people from many different ranks. It hinders their working environment not being able to live their life to the fullest. Feeling like they are somewhat doing things wrong in a way. Wanting to keep on doing their job yet having to sneak, as you will.

This picture is perverted! Immoral, I don't think I need to explain it any other way. It wasn't GOOD CONDUCT.

[Norma Desmond]

Micki--

 

Of course I made the statement about homosexual marriage with an ironic tone of voice. I

know homosexual marriage IS NOT immoral and I know that lessening veteran's benefits IS

immoral. I was mimicking how the American voter (not you, of course) and George Bush

feel. I was saying that politicians and particularly Republicans think of morality as limited

to sex instead of thinking of morality as poverty, hunger, and homelessness. The

Republicans talk about homosexuality as immoral at the same time they take health care

away from poor children. Their heads are up their own asses.

 

--Fred

[mvisionphotography]

And Fred, I am from Texas and my husband is in the Navy. If I don't

set my boundaries people will think I am also ignorant. EEEK

 

 

 

Ok, I was born blond but just because I just made a manipulated picture that is blond doesn't mean I am blond now. I am dense. I don't get jokes. I sometimes get sarcasm, I did know you were using it however, wasn't sure if others might not have figured it out. Figured I might have to spell things out a bit. (all smiles)

 

 

 

 

Somewhere, someway, someone might actually read this and have an epiphany and think. OMG I have been all wrong on this subject matter and maybe change their bigoted ways. Wouldn't that be swell. he he

 

 

 

One could only hope. Now if only some pervert would read this whole forum list and realize THEY are wrong for thinking that silly picture was art. OOPS did I say that out loud. Sorry. :)

 

Man, need to stay away from the forums, why haven't you kicked me yet? ~ she says bashfully

[Landrum Kelly]

Bob, I read the legal code that you referred us to. I am not sure that the photo meets the criterion of "lascivious," but I do not know how lawyers interpret that word. I have read somewhere that "lewd and lascivious" connotes a graver offense than "indecent exposure" if applied to adult behavior, but neither seems to apply to a child in any obvious way unless children were being coached as they were photographed (in general, that is, not in the case at hand).

 

I have thought about this off and on for a good part of the day, since I first heard about it, and it strikes me that the photo might well be staged, and that there could then be some question as to whether the photographer deliberately staged and thus included the nudity for the sake of making more money--which would certainly put it in the class of exploitation of the child, her own, I presume.

 

Then again, we are talking about the house of an artist who shot and shoots nudes, and for whom none of this might have been perceived as any big deal--and whose kids might have run around like this all the time, especially a younger child. It is very difficult to judge.

 

The seizure and uproar still strike me as more than a bit of an overreaction, and I wonder where all of this is going to cease. There is a huge leap from saying that it should not be posted to the internet to saying that this kind of photo "causes" pedophiles to do what they do. The latter would be my concern, but I am skeptical that any real evidence exists that links the display of such photos to an actual increased propensity to molest children. Rather, if there is a high correlation between the possession of child porn and rate of conviction for overt molestation, then the correlation might result simply from the fact that a person disposed to do one would likely be disposed to do the other. Showing the causal link is the difficult part, but the belief that there is a causal link accounts for much (but hardly all) of the public outcry over such material.

 

In any case, this is a very strange development, given that the photo has been publicly floating around for some time. One wonders if some ambitious young prosecutor wants to put another notch in his gun.

 

--Lannie

[petemillis]

Lannie and all - I've just had another thought. The more I think the more I believe the image is staged. And the more I think about an artist who would stage such an image the more I come to think that this is wrong. The reason being - it opens the door for "well off" people to "commission" pieces of "art" like this.

[sprouty]

<I>"The more I think the more I believe the image is staged."</I>

<P>

How on earth did you come to that conclusion?

<P>

<I>"And the more I think about an artist who would stage such an image the more I come to think that this is wrong.</I>

<P>

I'd be curious to know, given all that has been written above, how familiar you were with Nan Goldin, and her body of work prior to this thread.

[petemillis]

SP, I didn't conclude that the image was staged - I meant I believe it could be, but then I believe I could be wrong. It either is or it isn't and the people involved are the only ones who know. "An image like that COULD be staged" rather than just a fleeting moment - but then that's true of many "fleeting moments" in pictures.

 

How familiar was I with Goldin - I knew vaguely of her pictures showing the grimness of drug culture during the 80s, but had only seen copies of a handful of her work through acquaintances at university - it was never the sort of imagery that interested me at the time though, and still doesn't that much now, so I never paid much attention. I knew she had a problematic childhood. But I used to just switch off when my "trendy" mates were talking about her. The first time I had really seen her name mentioned in the press though was in 2001 when pictures were seized from the Saatchi gallery. But I wasn't really into photography during that time so never paid much attention. I'm more interested in the whole thing now though, because my interests have changed somewhat over the past few years. And I'm more interested in knowing more about the woman.

 

I know what you're asking - "why would I assume that the image is staged when most of her work clearly consists of documentary snapshots?" You know what? I don't know. I guess it's because it's the sort of picture that I would avoid taking - let alone taking and publishing. She's certainly done well at drawing attention to her work over the past few years - I'm sure because of this picture and others like it, far more people know of her now than ever would do if all she showed were her druggie pictures.

 

I'm still interested to know from any experts here - would the picture be worthy of being considered "art" if the girl was clothed? I know this is one picture in a series - so I'm also interested to know how this one picture fits in with the images of drug use and so on? What is the relationship between the pictures? Please explain someone!

[Norma Desmond]

Pete: "would the picture be worthy of being considered 'art' if the girl was clothed?"

 

I don't know, would M's David be art with a loincloth, D's Mona Lisa be art with a frown (or

a moustache, for that matter, painted on by Marcel Duchamp)?

 

It may be art precisely because of the nudity. So what?

 

Pete: "I guess it's because it's the sort of picture that I would avoid taking."

 

Probably the reason Nan is considered an artist and you maybe not so much (no reflection

on your work, much of which I happen to like, just your standing in the art world). Artists

tend to do things that others would avoid. Most people, up until the cubists started doing

their thing, avoided having breasts coming out of foreheads. Most people, up until

Duchamp, avoided putting things like urinals in museums.

 

Artists tend to think with a much wider net and a much less restrictive box than much of

what you've been saying indicates.

 

"But I used to just switch off when my 'trendy' mates were talking about her. . . I'm more

interested in the whole thing now though."

 

Wonderful, switching ON a bit more may allow you to discover a world well outside your

own norms, values, insights, and tastes. Provocation, even about a touchy subject, often

leads to discussion, openness, and catharsis. Aristotle long ago claimed catharsis as one

of art's main accomplishments. He understood that art often transcends itself and its

actual subject matter. We see children like this a lot, in the bath, at play, etc. Many are

obviously uncomfortable with such scenes. Being confronted with it in a photo may just

draw out exactly what the discomfort is about, where lines need to be drawn, how children

differ from adults, all kinds of things.

 

My guess is that Nan's photo has done more to stimulate this thread and similar

discussions throughout the world -- eliciting emotions, dialogue, differences, some

understanding -- than it has to stimulate any child molestors. As mentioned, no causal

connection to child molestation has ever been shown to inhere to such photos. To a large

extent, the artist obviously has done her job.

[Landrum Kelly]

"I showed the Goldin image to my (Korean) girlfriend, without a prior explanation about the controversy, and asked what she thought of it. She didn't see anything shocking about it. When I explained that it had been seized from a British art gallery for potentially being child pornography, then she was shocked." --Mike Dixon, on a related thread

<p><p>

This kind of response from someone from another country--and not just any country, but a country where filial piety and fidelity are highly valued--indicates to me that something is definitely wrong with our own culture. That is not to say that there is nothing wrong with the people who feast on child porn.

<p><p>

I mean simply that pedophilia is probably both a societal disorder as well as an individual pathology, if that makes any sense. What all of that has to do with the present thread is perhaps obscure, but I think that it has some bearing on the issue of the motive and intent of Nan Goldin--as well as the issue as to whether or not she set up the shot and deliberately marketed it on the basis of known appeal to certain potential "clients." (I am not saying that she did.) What I mean is this: would there even be a market for such pictures qua child porn (if one adjudges it so) if there were no pedophiles? The answer is clearly "no," and so the more interesting questions to me are

<p><p>

(1) what causes pedophilia? <p>

and (2) what can we do to prevent it?<p><p>

 

I do not think that our current legal frenzy over the legality of the pictures is going to get us very far in answering either question.<p><p>

Most of all, I do not think that any prosecutions in the instant case are going to do a thing by way of protecting children, which should be our primary concern. All that I am asking is that we not allow the banner of protecting children to become the basis for losing our common sense and becoming an even more repressive society than we already are--and here I am not referring to a sexually repressive society, but a generally repressive society in which mindless censorship has become not only the norm, but a norm which persons blindly accept and even encourage.<p><p>Given the Bush administration's assaults on due process and other civil liberties (not to mention the apparent popular indifference to such regressive and repressive practices), combined with what I have called "hysteria" on this issue, I wonder if the day is too far off when we shall live in a police state and look back and ask, "How did we get here? Where did we lose our way?"

<p><p>For the moment, at least, that scares me a lot more than the general (but I think misguided) question as to whether or not this kind of picture induces pedophiles to act out their perverse impulses.<p><p>

--Lannie

[Landrum Kelly]

"[N]o causal connection to child molestation has ever been shown to inhere to such photos." --Fred Goldsmith

 

Fred, apparently we cross-threaded. You summed it up better than I did, and I can remember when the issue was primarily whether pornography caused rape, not whether child pornography caused child molestation.

 

Apparently there are plenty of people out there who see pornography as the cause of all kinds of sexual deviance. I doubt this, while recognizing that deviants tend to be attracted to the pornography that fits their own patterns of deviance.

 

--Lannie

[petemillis]

Supply and demand though init? If people want pictures of naked children like Goldin's one (not necessarilly pornographic and regardless of its artistic merit), and it's decided that it's acceptable regardless of the child's right to privacy for a parent to give consent for that and make it all ok, then it opens the way for "commissioned" pieces of "art" and exploitation/victimisation of said children. It "legalises" something that impinges on the child's basic rights and for which they have no power or ability to give informed consent. I've never said that this sort of imagery is the cause of any type of sexual deviance - the whole issue is about far more than that. By suggesting that people oppose it on the grounds that it causes sexual deviance makes a mockery of what I'm trying to say. The issue is the the basic right of the child to be free from exploitation or victimisation. How can anything that goes against this seriously be justified - be it bullying at school, being forced to work in sweat shops for next to nothing, verbal abuse from parents, being blown up in the name of war, losing parents at war, - this is just one thing out of many...

 

I read something on a newspaper online comments page - somebody (Pat from Portland) who was in agreement that such picture is fine (and so artists should be free to publish them, and people free to view/purchase them) said

"Children don't sexualize every action, that's an adult behavior and perspective. Is it better to shame the child and try to impose adult dictums? The fact that there are some who inappropriately use such images means more restrictions are necessary? That would be fine for a society with the mentality of children requiring a parental government. " - this is an argument that has been put forward by others here concerning this topic - but surely, CHILDREN HAVE THE MENTALITY OF CHILDREN and that is the reason they need RESPONSIBLE adult parents who will protect them from exploitation...

 

I'd still love to know - how many people who are in favour of this image that is being discussed here have children and would be happy for such a picture of their child to be published by an "artist"? 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? Remember, these young kids have the mentality of children and wouldn't be sexualising the image - they'll juse see it as their explicitly nude vagina.

[Norma Desmond]

Pete--

 

I'm actually not happy that people take belt straps to their kids. It leads to much that is

harmful. I'm not happy that I daily see young impatient mother's screaming at their kids in

the supermarket for showing an interest in a cereal box a few feet away across the aisle.

I'm not happy that parents have their kids join restrictive clubs like the boy scouts. It can

damage their psyches and abilities to relate to a world of diversity. I'm not happy that

young girls are entered in pre-pubescent beauty pageants. I'm not happy about exposing

children to the teachings of many churches that exist. Luckily for most parents, my

morality doesn't rule.

 

Of course, there are times when society has to step in to protect children from their

parents. But it should be only a very considered and pretty rare situation.

 

The kids in Nan's photo may grow up in an open environment where there is little taboo

about nudity or genitals, an openness to certain images and they will enjoy these pictures

when adults and laugh at the controversy. On the other hand, it could be damaging to

their psyches. Given the limited amount of information we have here, the fact that we are

dealing in hypotheticals and not grounded facts, I think most parents would reserve this

decision for themselves and not give the authority to you or me.

 

You are right that there has been a certain amount of conflation of your argument with the

argument that such photos will lead to pedophilia. I realize you're not saying that and that

your interest is the psychological damage to the children themselves. I'd need solid proof

that that damage was inevitable before stepping in.

[kevin_schoedel]

<i>"The issue is the the basic right of the child to be free from exploitation or victimisation."</i>

<p>

Is it? Jill Greenberg walks free, and my google-fu uncovers no protest here.

[petemillis]

More than happy to start a thread on her photos where she took kids' lollipops away if you want! Perhaps your google-fu wasn't up to scratch - there's loads about this manipulator of children.

I like this http://thomashawk.com/2006/06/post-about-where-jill-greenberg-thinks.html

[kevin_schoedel]

Pete, I meant here, in the photo.net forums. (I've seen the linked article.)

[sprouty]

Pete, your intentions seem admirable, and I can sympathize with you. But given that I don't believe in universal rules and also that context is essential in forming an opinion, I would have to agree with Fred. The basic right of what is appropriate for a child should (largely) rest with the parent.

 

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.