Nan Goldin closure at Baltic, UK

[jd callow]

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?

You or in this case the cops added the sexual context. I wouldn't call it pornography if it was used by pedophiles. Your aside is what scares me and what I am sure motivated the gallery and the cops.

I suspect David's point is right on the money. I am probably wrong to disparage the single image without seeing it as it was intended -- part of a larger grouping.

 

[Photo Engineer]

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

 

[Sparky]

It seems to me the problem is not so much the naked kids - so much as those who would sexualize them... (in this case, that would be the police) and they should be locked up, IMO.

To call it porn seems a bit ridiculous when you have domestic animals walking around with their genitals freely hanging out for everyone to see. Seems a more important issue to address if you're going to go there...

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Oh, that'd be a hoot, putting pants on cats and dogs... just see how well that'd go over...

 

[Matthew Gorringe]

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?

Ah but they're black and they're African. We expect them to be exploited by NG style photographers to feed our vicarious wunderlust. They're also expected to be naked and starving.

Given the headline I mentioned at the start of the thread I suspect that the real reason this one has got so much attention this time is that it's part of a collection owned by a very prominent gay man.

I'm amazed that this would happen in England; MW USA yes. Parochial, colonial Australia, maybe. But Europe? Never.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Oh, that'd be a hoot, putting pants on cats and dogs... just see how well that'd go over...

Well, the Victorians would put skirts on the legs... oh, pardon me, the limbs... of a piano.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

and pianos don't even have penises!

 

[Matthew Gorringe]

and pianos don't even have penises!

They do have pedals though, mmmmmmmm pedals.

The reference to Victorian public morals rings very true David.

 

[Photo Engineer]

They do have pedals though, mmmmmmmm pedals.

The reference to Victorian public morals rings very true David.

Pedalfiles?

PE

 

[walter23]

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.

I'll buy that. That's actually a really compelling argument.

 

[johnnywalker]

Pedalfiles?

PE

 

[dslater]

I just googled the image and had a look. There are a number of people here who refer to this as "natural" play. I don't see it that way. The older girl standing up doesn't look all that natural to me. To me it looks like she was dressed up in a way that is intentionally a bit sexual. If she were running around in her underwear or for that matter completely naked, I'd find the "natural" argument a lot more compelling.

But the image looks to me like it was posed - not just a capture of a couple of little girls fooling around. I'm still not sure it rises to the level of kiddie porn, but it sure is close. I am quite sure that if I were to take a picture like that I would be arrested, tried and convicted.

 

[johnnywalker]

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.

 

[dslater]

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.

I think is does matter - I question whether or not they're just playing. it looks to me like the photographer dressed up the older girl in a provocative fashion. maybe they're just playing, maybe they were told to play limbo, or maybe they were simply told to pose that way.

As I said, I'm not sure this rises to the level of porn - I do think it rises to the level of exploitation.

 

[walter23]

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

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.

 

[johnnywalker]

I don't know how the girl became dressed up, but kids do play dress-up. I don't think it's provocative. The biggest mystery to me is why anyone would buy it, but I guess as David said, you'd have to see the rest of her work to see where it fit.

 

[walter23]

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.

Look, I've got no problem with edgy stuff. I love Joel Peter Witkin, for example. But none of his corpses are going to become screwed up because of their participation in his photography , and his adult models already are screwed up

 

[Matthew Gorringe]

Yeah, not exploiting nude children for some lame-ass artistic non-statement sure is backwards morality.

You've lost me here Walter, what are you saying?

What we're talking about here is the fact that this photo, that I think shows a naked child and nothing much more, has been removed from display by police on the basis that it constitutes child pornography.

Naked children != pornography, just as naked piano legs != naked ladies ankles.

 

[catem]

I do not like state interference in matters of art, and certainly am not happy with censorship.

However, I'm not sorry if this picture proves not such a 'golden egg' but more of an albatross to those who have invested in it, showing by doing so a singular lack of taste in my view (which of course in itself is not a crime).

The "obscenity" to me is the involvement of a great deal of money and status in this sort of 'Art' scene combined in this instance with the nature of the image and that a young child cannot give informed consent and cannot possibly understand or collude with the intent of the photographer.

In this case I'm not at all convinced I like the intent - it is too much placed in that initial wave of 1970's liberalism that many women, and children, took a little while to realise was defined by others rather than themselves (men, adults). Later they began to learn (and there's much learning still to be done) to have the power and audacity to take control of their personal definitions themselves.

 

[Roger Hicks]

...some lame-ass artistic non-statement...

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?

Having now looked at a fair amount of Nan Goldin's stuff on the internet, I have to say that I find this pic to be the worst of a bad lot, against strong competition, and that I can see little reason for its existence except shock value to spice up an ineffably tedious 'body of work'. Her work was linked with Sally Mann's on a couple of sites (presumably on the grounds of naked children), but I find Sally Mann an infinitely better photographer.

That's the trouble. It's opinion. It seems to me that Art is trying to claim the same status as Religion, as something that cannot be questioned. Someone can say that they believe in almost anything, no matter how absurd, but It's Their Religion and the rest of us have to shut up and go away. Some artists seem to claim the same privilege (equally indefensibly) for Their Art.

Is there an answer? Probably not. David's original point about the sheer incompetence of the gallery is well made. Were the kids just playing? Quite possibly. If you think about it, belly dancers do sometimes lie back in much the same position and shake their breasts; we're just not accustomed to how observant a little girl can be, though I rather wonder where and why she has seen much belly dancing. As for her being ashamed in later years, that happens with almost all children and young people and almost all photographs, including the most innocent and unexceptionable. By according this one special status, we are indeed promoting the sexualization of children by and for adults.

Finally, a couple of photokinas back there was a display in the main hall which included children of varying ages with no clothes on, including a frontal picture of young brother and sister squatting down with their knees well apart: I think they were holding their new baby sibling. No-one blinked; or if they did, there was never any fuss about their blinking. Most sane Europeans don't seem too worried about this sort of thing. What is the constituency of that small group that does? How international is it? Which nations?

 

[Ian Grant]

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

 

[Roger Hicks]

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

Dear Ian,

You are of course absolutely right, and I apologize to him if he doesn't agree. And even if he does, for that matter, for putting words in his mouth.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Photo Engineer]

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.

You have apparently never seen "Show Me".

The poses can be somewhat extreme in some cases.

PE

 

[David H. Bebbington]

Roger, David has made no comments on this thread about the gallery's "sheer incompetence" ...

True, I didn't, but now that the word "competence" has been mentioned, I wonder what it means in this context. The gallery manager no doubt felt he/she was being competent (or professional) in taking steps to head off potential trouble (and there could well be background issues such as nervousness about future funding, a wish not to "rock the boat", etc.) but it would have taken only a little effort to ascertain, as others have mentioned, that the image in question has appeared in public on gallery walls and in a book and that an attempt by police to have the image in question removed from the Saatchi gallery some years ago was rebuffed by the gallery (and then abandoned by the police). It was surely have been "competent" to know this, or find it out.

On the other hand, one of the qualities we can expect of gallery managers is the courage of their convictions and the willingness to defend artistic expressions against hysterical puritans, and here the Baltic has failed dramatically. On reflection, therefore, I would call the Baltic management incompetent - it is very clear what Nan Goldin is about and what can be expected from a show of her work - to go to all the trouble of securing the loan of the works, curating and hanging them, etc. and then chickening out makes no sense at all.

Regards,

David

 

[Dave Wooten]

www.4debatetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5