As others said more eloquently on this thread, this picture may make most people uncomfortable, but that can often be the purpose of art. Is it to my taste? No, but that doesn't say anything regarding its artistic value. I happen to think Damien Hirst's work is overhyped crap, but he won the Tate Prize, so there you have it.
I think the fact alone this work sparked so much discussion and heated reactions says a lot more on its artistic value than its aesthetic appeal or lack thereof, or the picture quality/composition.
The truth is, if I'd seen the piece in the context of a larger exhibition, it's possible that I would have glanced at it without a second thought. Or I it might have possibly shocked me-either way, I can't know now, because taken out of context and with the whole scandal/the website blurring out the pink taco (sorry Sojiita) bits, it's like a whole new layer of seediness has been added to it that has nothing to do with the original impact.
Calling it pornography is just beyond ridiculous imo, and completely trivializing of actual child pornography. And forgetting about factors such as context, intent and impact on the subject. The picture is meant to be shown (and has already been displayed, multiple times) in the context of a museum and exhibition, as well as the wider context of a different, pre-pedophile era. The intent of this picture is art-and yes, probably contraversy, debate, and some attention-grabbing. Pornography's sole intent is to arouse. This doesn't mean pedophiles can't wank to it, but it's hardly the reason it was created, and it's not an artist's responsibility to predict how someone can view their work. And finally, while one may make big arguments about subject exploitation by photographers in general, or speculate about how mortified the girl in the photograph is today (which is pure speculation-for all we know, she bores everyone to death by parading the picture a famous photographer took of her once), I don't think having this photograph taken was traumatizing/uncomfortable for either of the girls, which we certainly can't say for victims of REAL child porn.
The witch hunt against Elton for owning a piece of what is regarded in relevant circles as art would be hilarious if it wasn't so enraging. Yes, he decided to buy a piece of child porn (with little GIRLS, for fuck's sake!), and then just for laughs, donated it to a museum. Because ALL pedophiles are so forward and open, you know! Wow, what a great way to illustrate that mass hysteria isn't only scary, it's often based on the stupidest arguments.
And whoever suggested buying the piece to burn it-that statement by itself is more disturbing than a thousand shots of prepubescent vagina. Jesus.
|