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

[bruce levy]

You certainly have the right to make that decision, just as the parents of those children did. Surely you don't wish to force your opinion on others.

[papasan]

fair enough Bruce. I enjoyed the exchange. Cheers

[bruce levy]

Me too.

[john_h.1]

"People thought Jock Sturges was exploiting children. The Supreme Court says he wasn't."

 

My comments were not about the legality of the imagery.

 

"Do you imply that I'm a pervert?"

 

No. I suggest you value your freedom to view pictures of naked children over their inability assert freedom from you viewing them so. This analysis is the same whether you are a pervert or not.

 

"These children were playing."

 

Their activities are not the issue. The entire long discussion of children not having the ability to control the use of their naked image by others is totally lost on you which only serves to bolster my point about you valuing your freedom while disregarding theirs.

 

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

 

If you read my post you will find that I already gave contextual examples such as the naked baby or child in the bath for family use and discussed the fact that the imagery at issue here had sexual body parts as the focal point of the images and that the "artist" would be ignored but for that.

 

"keep your hands away from your dirty parts."

 

This makes no sense at all and is probably just a visceral reaction to my criticism. This sudden response, however, reveals what you think of certain body parts. Unlike Jeff, you find certain body parts to be "dirty". You displayed your own "puritanical judgment" here. You argue in the same lecture about puritanical judgment(s) that the kids were just playing. Yet, you also say certain body parts are dirty. Using your own standards, these images of children contain "dirty" displays of body parts.

 

You argue they should not have freedom from others viewing that. I disagree.

[john_h.1]

"I'm sure David Vitter and Larry Craig feel as you do"

 

If you read or understood my comments Bruce, you would not make this assertion. These people would try to control artistic expression made by and of adults. I have only questioned the use of sexually charged imagery of children. You should read the first paragraph of my first post.

[petemillis]

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.

 

The problem we have is that if the courts decde that Nan Goldin's "work of art" (ha ha, my arse) is acceptable then surely that would set a precedent and provide a defence for perverts. Whether Goldin's photograph is seen as porn, or a snapshot, or a serious piece of art is irrelevant - it's the implications of the outcome of any legal case that are a lot more important.

 

Also, I read this "Sorry, but it really is art. It may not be your idea of art, but Nan Goldin is a highly respected photographer and artist." on one of the web sites linked to above (the HITUSA.com) one - I don't understand how it follows that if a "respected photographer and artist" takes the picture it is somehow automatically seen as piece of art and is moved between people in exchange for lots of money and seen worthy or exhibiting.

[bruce levy]

You guys are pathetic.

[john_macpherson]

Pete "The problem we have is that if the courts decde that Nan Goldin's "work of art" (ha ha, my arse) is acceptable then surely that would set a precedent and provide a defence for perverts. Whether Goldin's photograph is seen as porn, or a snapshot, or a serious piece of art is irrelevant - it's the implications of the outcome of any legal case that are a lot more important"

 

No it does not "set a precedent", and whether its seen as a serious piece of art IS VERY RELEVANT, as this will influence to a great extent the outcome of any trial. The law (at least in the UK) is a far less blunt instrument than you might like. I listened to an informed radio discussion on this issue day before yesterday and a very experienced barrister considered the matter and faced with the same "precedent" fear, dismissed it. His judgment was that in considering the case, IF (and only IF) it went to court, the judge would consider it in the context it was created and published, which was an artistic one. It is ALL about intent. And in this instance would most likely find no case to answer as a consequence.

 

The point was made that the programme presenter was able to walk out of Borders Books with a copy without being arrested for possession, and this was because in the context of the overall body of work by Goldin this image has artistic meaning. Whether that image/context offends you or not is irrelevant, it's how the law judges it in the round (at least in the UK).

 

Your quoted "upskirt pervert" will be charged, and rightly so, because what he is doing is altogether different, both in intent, and in the eyes of the law with regard to numerous pieces of public order legislation.

 

More concerning in your comment is the line: "Police were sispicious of him as he was hanging around with a camera where young kids were playing."

 

There is, sadly, a climate of suspicion around these days where anyone with a camera near children is automatically suspected of being a pervert, and sometimes they are, but in the vast majority of cases they are not. But unfortunately the kind of knee-jerk rants that such issues elicit are usually made in ignorance of the law and serve only to inflame the general mood.

 

"I don't understand how it follows that if a "respected photographer and artist" takes the picture it is somehow automatically seen as piece of art and is moved between people in exchange for lots of money and seen worthy or exhibiting."

 

Try turning this on its head - can you understand why it might seem strange to some people that a respected artist and photographer can be accused of being a pornographer?

[petemillis]

Ooooh, here we go! Such a mature well considered response to what was an interesting discussion. Bruce, from your previous posts I got the impression that you wouldn't want to force your opinions on anyone else any more than you would want their opinions forced on you - it seems though that you are prepared to announce as pathetic anyone whose opnions differ from yours! Typical.

 

I have 4 kids between the ages of 5 and 13. For me, their rights to privacy come before any photographer's/artist's right to take and display or share any photograph that can be construed as anything other than decent and innocent. There's a huge difference here between Sturges' photographs - that while showing nakedness do so in a way which is still generally decent and respectful of the subjects - and Goldin's photograph that has sparked this discussion. Sure, Goldin's photograph is of children at play, and sure the kids' parents gave consent for it to be published (well, we assume they did). But, is it respectful of the kids and their rights? Or do you believe that kids don't have any rights until they reach adulthood? Would it be ok for a photographer to take and display a photograph of an adult woman with her legs spread without her consent?

 

Maybe consent is part of the issue. When kids are below the age of consent then their parents/guardians are considered the responsible persons who are obliged to care for them and give consent on their behalf. I certainly don't know the circumstances under which consent was given by the parents for Goldin to publish this particular image. I don't know whether the kids' parents are responsible parents, or parents desperate for money, or junkies or well respected middle class parents. But by suggesting this is ok because the parents gave consent is misguided. 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. It's acknowledged that a lot of Goldin's subjects are junkies - people who are not in their right mind - and Goldin was also in the same boat and spent time in rehab. How do we know that these kids' parents were fit to give consent? To suggest that this is fine because the parents consented completely ignores child protection issues, that surely are more important than Goldin being able to display this picture and sell prints of it.

 

Don't get me wrong - I'm not suggesting that this Goldin image is pornographic, but I do think it is expoitative of kids who are too young to understand or to give consent for publication of the image. This isn't to say that all images of kids are expoitative, but I think we need to consider the types of images of ourselves that we would be happy to see published by someone without our own consent being given. A further thought - there are other groups of people who are unable to give informed consents and responsibility for this is handed over to their adult children, or carer or whatever. 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? Can we say that because these people are incapable of giving their own consent to something that their rights to privacy and decent treatment are seen as non-existent?

 

One final point - if 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!

 

Nowhere in the above am I trying to force my opinion on anyone so I won't resort to calling anyone who disagrees "pathetic". I might think you're an a wanker though but I'll keep that to myself!

[bruce levy]

John MacPherson

 

Succinct and dead on. Thank you.

[bruce levy]

Luckily none of us will be making the ultimate determination.

[bruce levy]

And Pete, your argument and examples are just chock full of "straw men"

[petemillis]

John MacPherson - I understand the points you are making. With regard to the Trafalgar Square pervert - I just spoke to my wife about this as I couldn't remember exact details, but apparently he had been hanging around obviously taking photographs up girls' skirts as they were climbing about - and I just found this article about it (he is a Canadian astrophysicist)

http://icsurreyonline.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200surreyheadlines/tm_headline=nato-man-had-500-000-indecent-images&method=full&objectid=17867852&siteid=50101-name_page.html

 

People on one of the AP boards were up in arms saying how he was a "victim" who was just taking innocent photographs - seeming happy to ignore the fact that the police suspicion led to the seizing of half a million indecent images of children.

 

I get your point about Goldin not being a pornographer and accept that. I just don't feel that the situation should be seen as acceptable. I'll come back to this later - I'm off to eat bubble and squeak!

[petemillis]

Bruce, please justify your comment. What is wrong with my examples? Do you honestly believe there is a difference between a vulnerable child and a vulnerable adult that would make it ok to show pictures of children but not adults in this way? I asked some perfectly reasonable questions and gave some examples of other groups that could be considered just as vulnerable as kids. I can't see in my words any misrepresentation of anything you have said - all I have done is to ask some questions and stated my thought.

 

"However, people often misuse the statement "straw man argument" as a catch-all to refute an opponent in a debate." (from the respected source - Wikipedia) - I take your comment as nothing more than a cop out.

[john_macpherson]

"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? Can we say that because these people are incapable of giving their own consent to something that their rights to privacy and decent treatment are seen as non-existent?"

 

 

No. Their carers CANNOT give such consent. Their 'incapacity' does not lessen their rights as you describe, it actually increases such individual's right to protection.

 

"One final point - if 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!"

 

With respect Pete, and whilst I understand your response, you are betraying a woeful ignorance of what the law allows you to do or not to do.

 

One may take images of children in public - that is legal. One may not grab someone's camera and beat them up - that is illegal. The only person that has the right to decide what is 'inappropriate' with regard to the images the photographer's camera contains is a judge. Thats what is at the heart of this whole issue.

 

And in the case you mention of the 'astrophysicist pornographer' up until his camera was inspected and his image collection was discovered, he was only the former, with the latter title only being assumed after his conviction. I have not read the link, but I doubt he was a victim.

 

However many parents who submitted their films for processing and found themselves being reported to the police under indecency laws most certainly were victims. Context again. And just because some evangelical and easily offended film processor took exception to images of naked kids in the bath did not mean that these images were found illegal when judged in the context of their taking.

 

"I have 4 kids between the ages of 5 and 13. For me, their rights to privacy come before any photographer's/artist's right to take and display or share any photograph that can be construed as anything other than decent and innocent."

 

You have some truly lovely images of your children in your portfolio (I assume they are your children?). However there are probably people browsing pnet who may view those images in a wholly different way than you or I might like. If those images were subsequently found to be part of an (astrophysicist) pervert's image collection, and/or used as base material for some manipulated images, YOUR decision to consent to allow those images to be publicly available online might be considered foolish by some.

 

I would not think this. Not at all. I think they are excellent, and innocent. But in another context, one out of your control, all sorts of things might happen to/with them, with consequences for you and your children that you might be less than happy about.

 

For a flavour of what I mean see my recent post on the Flickr case where the posted pic of an underage girl is used in advertizing by a mobile phone company.

 

Here: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00MhdK

 

Where does responsibility lie? A judge will decide, but it will be messy up until that point.

 

These issues ARE emotive, and they ARE important and we photographers should be clear in our own minds where the lines are drawn not just morally, but legally too.

 

Hope the bubble squeak went down well! :-)

[petemillis]

It's a shame Princess Diana isn't here - I'd love to hear her thoughts on Uncle Elton's tastes! Flippant comment I know, but so what.

 

John "There is, sadly, a climate of suspicion around these days where anyone with a camera near children is automatically suspected of being a pervert, and sometimes they are, but in the vast majority of cases they are not. But unfortunately the kind of knee-jerk rants that such issues elicit are usually made in ignorance of the law and serve only to inflame the general mood. "

 

I agree - sometimes people with cameras near children are perverts, but the vast majority are not. And discussions like this can inflame the general mood - as does the media. Which is why it isn't unreasonable to expect society, particularly perhaps responsible parents, to want to protect children. It doesn't hurt to be wary. It's unfortunate that this is how we feel we have to be. 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.

 

I'm not sure if you saw in one of the other threads, but I mentioned an old bloke I caught wanking while he was sitting in his car and watching kids at a public park. I could have ignored him and just thought of him as a bit of a dirty old man. But instead he got arrested, interviewed, admitted the offence, and received a caution. He is now known to the public protection unit. I know where he lives, and have since found out that the family next door have a young daughter, and this bloke has been round there on certain occasions. The family are friends of a friend. Now should I let them know that he is perhaps a higher risk and they might want to be wary, or should I leave be so he retains his freedom to come and go into their home?

 

Are people who derive pleasure from images like this of Goldin's a potential higher risk? How do we know whether the pleasure they derive is a purely innocent enjoyment of the image - i.e. it makes them laugh or whatever - or whether they enjoy the image as they like to think about young children in a sexual way? Should it all just be ignored for the sake of artistic freedom possibly at the expense of child protection? Or are we right to be wary?

 

I have no problem at all with the publication images like this in which the subject is a responsible adult who can give proper consent - that's their right to do so if they wish, and one would like to believe that by giving this consent then they acknowledge that people will get all sorts of pleasure from it. 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. But hey, I surely wouldn't be able to do anything as I had no rights to object and they gave consent on my behalf.

 

To me, at least, it just seems barking mad. There's another point about precedents - I'm an individual who wants to build an eco-home on 36 acres of land that is owned by my mother, the local authority like the look of the eco-home I want to build and agree that I need somewhere to live, but they won't approve it in case it sets a precedent for further development. However, a well known development company has just been granted permission to build an office block and a whole heap of brick built homes for well-off couples on land of the same classification. How come what I want to do is turned down as it might set a precedent, but when it's something someone well known or respected wants to do....it fine!

[petemillis]

BTW John, forgot to mention - the bubble and squeak was lovely ta!

[petemillis]

Also forgot to comment on "You have some truly lovely images of your children in your portfolio (I assume they are your children?). However there are probably people browsing pnet who may view those images in a wholly different way than you or I might like. If those images were subsequently found to be part of an (astrophysicist) pervert's image collection, and/or used as base material for some manipulated images, YOUR decision to consent to allow those images to be publicly available online might be considered foolish by some.

 

I would not think this. Not at all. I think they are excellent, and innocent. But in another context, one out of your control, all sorts of things might happen to/with them, with consequences for you and your children that you might be less than happy about. "

 

Thanks for the nice words about the pictures of my kids. I understand exactly what you're saying about how there is potential for these images to be seen by some people in a different way from what I would like, or indeed to become base material for manipulated images. And I would be horrified if I found that manipulation of our images had occurred. However, the difference is that these images as they are are no different to what I would be happy for someone else to take of our children for legitimate purposes. And there a billions and billions of perfectly normal pictures of children the world over - in newspapers, books, magazines, on TV, in photo albums and so on. My consicience is clear in that I know that my images are no different to how one would expect to see every single other child when walking about. There is no hint of anything that can be construed by any other normal person as indecent or inappropriate. If some third party were to abuse and manipulate the images then that is something that is unfortunately out of our hands. We can't keep children locked away out of sight. All we can do is be careful I suppose, and hope to God that the vast majority of people are decent and respectable and wouldn't consider perfectly normal images of children as something to put in a pervert's collection. It's sad.

[jaybee]

"I don't believe in any type of censorship whatsoever, anytime, anywhere, no exceptions."

 

That's a rather broad statement. Does that include Nicole Brown Simpson or Dale Earnhardt autopsy photographs? What about pictures of James Byrd's body spread over the road where he was dragged to death? Live broadcast of state sanctioned executions? Photographs of men or women being raped or murdered?

 

--

 

I realize that art is in the eye of the beholder. In my eye, Nan Goldin, like Julian Schnabel, is proof that good marketing skills sometimes trump talent as the way to increase the acceptance of your work and drive up the prices for it.

 

--

 

Would we be having this same discussion if the photograph was of two little boys of the same age?

 

Just curious.

 

Joel Berry - Sugar Land, Texas

[rffffffff]

"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."

 

This is exactly NOT what I mean. If there are a whole lot of images of naked girls, it could be a problem. If, as a whole, the body of work consists of pictures like this, of people in their environment, adults a children, clothed and unclothed, it makes this photograph part of a collection that as a whole is not pornographic.

 

I think the main difference here is between people who see this image as sexual and people that dont.

 

"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."

 

I disagree, and until that sentiment can be reconciled between everyone, there won't be any uniform consensus. I see the image as something entirely different. Perhaps thats why is is "art" and not "porn" to me.

 

I also see the image in context a little more because I have seen a lot of Nan Goldin's work, and I know how it fits a little better than people who have only seen this shot, or limited stuff of hers.

[john_h.1]

Ok then. Slip a small anount of such photos into a bigger collection and its fine?

 

No. The children involved still do not have the capacity to excersise judgment concerning their own provacy. The still do not have the ability to excercise the freedom some posters demand for themselves. The quantity does not change a thing.

 

Likewise your view of art vs. porn is of no consequence. An image need not arise to the level of pure porn to invade the ordnary privacy of people. Surely someone like you would not approve of showing images of a naked person without that person's consent, whether it is pornographic or merely art. These children are not able to give the consent but you find it accpetable to show pictures of them in such a state nevertheless in the name of art.

[petemillis]

Scott, you said this "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?" in your earlier post.

 

With the same in mind though, should we say it is appropriate to take their privacy, things they are doing during play at home and without a care in the world, and make it public?

 

Also, just had another thought... Playing naked - fine, playing at belly dancing - fine, kids playing at belly dancing while naked in their own home - fine, and kids playing naked outdoors - fine, and even adults playing naked outdoors - it really doesn't matter.

 

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?

 

 

Joel "Would we be having this same discussion if the photograph was of two little boys of the same age? ".... I'm curious about this too. I don't think we'd be having this conversation anyway if the camera was not so obviously directed at the girl's spread legs (whether intentional or by chance). And I'm not sure that an image of a young boy in this position would exhibit such an appearance of vulnerability.

 

It would be interesting to hear from some of the women here - Zoe, Micki, Nicole and all - do you see this picture as art? Would you mind if it was you or you daughter in this picture? All that sort of thing. If you looked today as a picture that was taken when you were 5 years old, naked, with your legs spread toward the camera, and you knew it was hung up on peoples walls and in books and in galleries for all to see in the name of art - would you be bothered? Maybe by the age you are now then it might not bother you so much - but imagine you were at school then when you first learned about it, would that bother you?

 

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?

 

For me personally - if I was in that position in the picture, at 5 years old, with my little chap hanging there - it probably wouldn't really bother me too much. If it was my daughter - then no way would that picture see the light of day. If it was my son - well I don't know if I'd feel quite so strongly (he's always got his willy out when he goes for a pee in the bushes anyway!) but it would still concern me that he might have feelings about it later on, and so I'd feel a need to protect that.

[Spearhead]

<i>could imply an erotic belly dance rather than just a belly dance. I hear there are clubs with naked belly dancers.</i><p>This is just nonsense, the truth about belly dancing can be found <a href="http://www.shira.net/debunking.htm">here.</a> It's only in the minds of men who can't deal with women's bodies that belly dancing becomes something other than a dance.

[petemillis]

Jeff, I do know the history of belly dancing already - thank you though for the interesting link. If you quoted me properly as opposed to selectively - without removing my words from the context in which I said them - then you would see that for yourself.

I said

"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."

specifically meaning that naked belly dancing is seen as erotic dance, in the same way as lap dancing, pole dancing or whatever. See - nakedness + belly dancing "COULD" imply an erotic belly dance rather than just a belly dance. Traditional old belly dancing is done by women with clothes on. Nowhere did I imply that belly dancing in itself is seen as erotic.

 

"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 this is the context in which I meant it - without the nakedness the picture wouldn't be worth a thing to anyone other than the kids' family. Goldin captures the girl's genitalia with spread legs, gives it some title other than "naked child with legs spread" or whatever, and all of a sudden it's art. What an absolute heap of bollocks. It's not some defining moment in the girl's life, it's not some documentary of a nudist colony, it's not some documentary series from the third world, it's not a well taken picture - it's a snapshot of some vulnerable child's genitalia that is being exploited by Goldin for personal gain and is no doubt making many people happy in their own special way.

 

Can you, Jeff, not see the difference between this picture as it is, and how it would be seen if the girl was wearing knickers? 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?

 

I'm sorry Jeff, I don't even know if you have kids - but these are all thoughts that occur to me as a parent. I viewed some of Sturges' work and can see how his photographs would still work and could be popular even if the nakedness wasn't there - I didn't see anything exploitative in them - I didn't see nakedness as being the main or essential focus of the work. But when I look at this snapshot of Goldin's, all I see is a piece of crap that has been described as a piece of art purely because of the naked girl and the "artist's" name. What else is there to it? What have I missed?

[afs760bf]

<i> It's only in the minds of men who can't deal with women's bodies that belly dancing becomes something other than a dance. </i> <p>

 

If you watch your local news, you'll probably see at least five or six stories each week about such men, and some of them do eventually deal with women's bodies in a manner that is somewhat illegal. Do you think maybe they would go see such a thing and think it suggestive? They might not have read the web link. Not all minds are as pure as ours.