The fact that adult sexual interference with children is damaging is well documented. There probably aren't enough cases of high-profile artists publishing child pornography to get data on this specifically, so we have to generalize.
As a bit of an aside or question for debate, which I'd point out isn't the crux of my argument here, one could imagine that if that image was being distributed by pedophiles for purposes of masturbation, it would be called child porn without much debate. Why does high-profile "artistic" publication change its status?
These things happen every day in some families throughout the world. How about images of naked children in African countries, are we going to see those banned too?
Oh, that'd be a hoot, putting pants on cats and dogs... just see how well that'd go over...
and pianos don't even have penises!
They do have pedals though, mmmmmmmm pedals.
The reference to Victorian public morals rings very true David.
There's more context and history there than just the label of "art." This is one image that is part of a meaningful body of work that affects how we read it.
Some will say that each individual image needs to stand on its own, but as I see it, some work that way, and some don't. An individual Becher photograph of a water tower is nothing special, but nine of them in one frame is interesting. Nan Goldin's work is narrative and project oriented, and makes more sense as a book or an exhibition than as so many individual photographs. If you look at the photograph in isolation, then I would say you're not really looking at Goldin's work, which is a project.
They're just playing. Possibly the photographer set the play up. Does it matter?
Belly dancers are sexy. A little girl pretending to be a belly dancer is not.
Well, the book "Show Me" apparently had no bad effects. Kids running naked and etc have apparently no effect. See National Geographic where children up to about 10 run naked.
I'm not in favor of this, but it is a matter of culture.
PE
They do have pedals though, mmmmmmmm pedals.
The reference to Victorian public morals rings very true David.
Yeah, not exploiting nude children for some lame-ass artistic non-statement sure is backwards morality.
Yes, I'd agree that as artistic statements go, it is saying absolutely nothing new -- at least, nothing new to me, nor, I would think, to many others. The trouble is, when do you start to censor lack of originality? And as I asked in an earlier post, who censors it? And why? Do we censor work because we find it tedious or banal? (That would cut out a lot of 'fine art photography' for me.) Or because there are naked children in it? Or because there are any children in it, and children can't give informed consent? Or because it's pretentious or overpriced or (frequently) both? Or because it's in bad taste?...some lame-ass artistic non-statement...
Roger, David has made no comments on this thread about the gallery's "sheer incompetence", what he actually said was:
"What do people think of this case? I feel on the one hand the image in question was needlessly provocative, on the other I think it ominous that the gallery and the owner of the work have reacted so extremely and prematurely (surely if the police had felt the work was obscene, they would have ordered the show closed immediately?). Would be interested in others' views."
He might well agree that the whole matter does appear totally incompetent, but we can't put those words in his mouth
Ian
Yeah, of course. Kids being nude is no big deal, in public or not. Same with photography thereof. But this image kind of jumps into an uncomfortable area that goes a little beyond just nudity. Perhaps just in the eye of the beholder, but that's how I see it.
Roger, David has made no comments on this thread about the gallery's "sheer incompetence" ...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?