Child porn police to investigate Elton John

[Mira]

I guess the way this situation can be summed up is that Nan Godin's work was once widely considered art before the hysteria of the current era, but it is now widely considered offensive and at the very least, objectionable.

[nana55]

It was considered "art" by people who are so pretentious they refuse to back down when someone points out it is crap.

[pacific breeze]

^^That is your opinion. I happen to like the photograph. As to whether it is "good" art -- again, a subjective judgment -- or not is another matter. But good or bad, I still don't think it is pornographic. Talk about a tempest in a teapot over a photo that is 20 years old.

This whole fake controversy reminds of a statue of a naked man with a suitcase that was commissioned for the main square of a town in the Okanagan (Penticton, for those who care). A few over-zealous churchgoers took it upon themselves to deface and vandalize the statue and the city fathers backed down, even though the majority of people in the town didn't object to the statue. It's now on display at a winery nearby and has won several international awards.

The artist successfully sued the city and a couple of the vandals and I say good on him. Why is it that a handful of people, most of whom are hypocrites anyway, get to decide what the rest of us see or don't see?

[Mira]

I agree with your last statements, however, I think a lot of the ruckus is about the fact that this amateurish photograph is considered a fine example of BW photography.

[Sojiita]

Originally Posted by pacific breeze

^^That is your opinion. I happen to like the photograph. As to whether it is "good" art -- again, a subjective judgment -- or not is another matter. But good or bad, I still don't think it is pornographic. Talk about a tempest in a teapot over a photo that is 20 years old.

This whole fake controversy reminds of a statue of a naked man with a suitcase that was commissioned for the main square of a town in the Okanagan (Penticton, for those who care). A few over-zealous churchgoers took it upon themselves to deface and vandalize the statue and the city fathers backed down, even though the majority of people in the town didn't object to the statue. It's now on display at a winery nearby and has won several international awards.

The artist successfully sued the city and a couple of the vandals and I say good on him. Why is it that a handful of people, most of whom are hypocrites anyway, get to decide what the rest of us see or don't see?

I do not like the photograph..and think it is crappy art. But where we(most importantly) agree...is that it IS art..not porn.

[yaruar]

Originally Posted by nana55

It was considered "art" by people who are so pretentious they refuse to back down when someone points out it is crap.

Of course, it can't be art, because you say so.... Whereas there are a lot of us out there who like her work. Art doesn't have to be technically perfect, art doesn't have to be beautiful. In fact if something was then personally i wouldn't like it. I've wandered round gallaries of dutch school perfectly painted bowls of fruit (thousands looking exactly the same) and wondered why they bothered, yes they are perfectly painted, but they have no context or meaning. They ask no questions of the viewer. Some people like art to challenge and question and have something to say. In the same way that not everyone wants to see the latest slick blockbuster at the cinema, some of us like the grainy films, which may not be perfectly shot, may not fit together perfectly, but which speak to us. It's not about being pretentious, it's about wanting something different. For every perfect figurative painter there is a Francis Bacon, for every Ansel Adams there is a Weegee (and i would guess you wouldn't consider Weegee's work to be any good based on your criteria as a photographic expert...)

[Mira]

I agree that it isn't porn, but it is offensive. I wonder who the girl is and how she feels about all this flap? I'd be hiding and refusing interviews.

[Sojiita]

Originally Posted by Mira

I agree that it isn't porn, but it is offensive. I wonder who the girl is and how she feels about all this flap? I'd be hiding and refusing interviews.

That is an interesting question. I wonder how the subject feels about his..whether or not it is art?

[sputnik]

i agree with yaruar. art doesn't have to be pretty and decorative. and nan goldin may be controversial and a lot of people may hate her work but she's also a very respected artist. people's tastes are completely different and so are their concepts of what art is. to some, goldin may be talentless and pretentious but she's also been a very respected artist for years and has her work in some of the biggest museums. but all that is irrelevant. even if it is 'bad' art, that still doesn't make it child porn and i still don't see why this is grounds for the owner of the piece to be investigated by police.

[pacific breeze]

Like I said, I'm sure there are some predictable agendas here and I suspect this will go away quietly without a single charge being laid.

[Palermo]

Most things involving ADULTS don't bother me at all; however, a bird's eye view of a little girl's genitals? Nope, that's just not right. I know they're just playing around, but as some others have said, it gives the pervs a little girl to stare at, and I think for SOME weirdos that might be enough to entice them to go and find a real little girl. I don't like the idea of grownups staring at baby twats and calling it art.

[Voodoo Child]

Originally Posted by nana55

It was considered "art" by people who are so pretentious they refuse to back down when someone points out it is crap.

Go Nana!

[Grimmlok]

I don't think it's porn, but it isn't something i'd put on my wall for my mother to see when she visits.

[crackho]

Originally Posted by sweetrebel

I am not an art person...I like the shitty roostser pics at my local wal mart, but IMO a shot of a kids open vajajay is wrong. IF she was laying in that position with her legs together, I don't know that any of us would feel that it was wrong. The shot itself is what I don't like. I love the idea of two sisters having a ball dancing and playing together, it's just offensive to me to see her spread eagle like that...

I don't think it would have been in her collection if the girl's legs weren't spread - the purpose of her "art" is to shock and get a rise out of people and question whether her art verges on pornography, etc., and it does just that. It really isn't anything I want to look at. I felt like a was invading a private part of that little girl's life after I clicked on that picture.

[sweetness]

Originally Posted by pacific breeze

This whole fake controversy reminds of a statue of a naked man with a suitcase that was commissioned for the main square of a town in the Okanagan (Penticton, for those who care). A few over-zealous churchgoers took it upon themselves to deface and vandalize the statue and the city fathers backed down, even though the majority of people in the town didn't object to the statue. It's now on display at a winery nearby and has won several international awards.

The artist successfully sued the city and a couple of the vandals and I say good on him. Why is it that a handful of people, most of whom are hypocrites anyway, get to decide what the rest of us see or don't see?

A statue of some possibly fake, random man? Fine! This is a picture of a real little girl though. Not some object.
If there was a picture taken spread eagle of you as a little girl would you like for people to have it hanging on their walls?

Why it is some sort of privelege or right to see a little girl's privates for the sake of art is beyond me.

If I took photographs of someone beheading a puppy, that would be art too, right?

Speaking of hypocrites.....
I bet some of the folks who are okay with this picture are also the same folks who pitch a fit over child beauty pageants.

Originally Posted by Mira

I agree that it isn't porn, but it is offensive. I wonder who the girl is and how she feels about all this flap? I'd be hiding and refusing interviews.

Exactly! But according to some, since it is 'art', how the little girl, now a woman, possibly feels about it does not matter.

Originally Posted by Palermo

Most things involving ADULTS don't bother me at all; however, a bird's eye view of a little girl's genitals? Nope, that's just not right. I know they're just playing around, but as some others have said, it gives the pervs a little girl to stare at, and I think for SOME weirdos that might be enough to entice them to go and find a real little girl. I don't like the idea of grownups staring at baby twats and calling it art.

I feel exactly the same way.

Originally Posted by crackho

I don't think it would have been in her collection if the girl's legs weren't spread - the purpose of her "art" is to shock and get a rise out of people and question whether her art verges on pornography, etc., and it does just that. It really isn't anything I want to look at. I felt like a was invading a private part of that little girl's life after I clicked on that picture.

Me too, but apparently to many others, this is art so none of that is relevant.

Peoples' right to view whatever they please is more important than what is right and what is wrong. Right?