Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Nan Goldin photograph siezed by police

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

55% OFF new PortraitPro 12 - use code EPHZROS414.
stolzy
stolzy  83753 forum posts7 Constructive Critique Points
26 Sep 2007 - 10:10 PM

A photograph by Nan Goldin exhibited at the Baltic Centre in Tyneside has been seized by police after a complaint that it is child pornography - line here.

Apparently the picture belongs to Elton John who loaned it to the exhibition. Anybody know where it can be seen on the net?

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
26 Sep 2007 - 10:10 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

stolzy
stolzy  83753 forum posts7 Constructive Critique Points
26 Sep 2007 - 10:21 PM

Oops, here's the link

BlindLemon
26 Sep 2007 - 11:36 PM

The picture is called "Klara and Edda belly-dancing"

If you google it the picture is easy to find.

I have not put a link in, because now I have seen it, I'm not sure it is suitable for Epz/general viewing.

I have to say I'm not happy with the picture.
And I've always been a fan of Elton John, so it disappoints me.

culturedcanvas
27 Sep 2007 - 12:10 AM

I have to say that the work is controversial but Nan Goldin is known for her cutting edge work. Personally the work doesn't offend me, and in this context I personally do not consider the image to be child porn, which I find beyond despicable.

If you view the body of her work you will find her handling a huge range of emotional subject matter without a leaning towards children in any way.

Elton is a well known and well regarded collector and supporter of the arts and personally I don't think his good name has been tarnished by this.

I sincerely hope that the CPS will see common sense over this and ensure the work is cleared and returned to its owner. I would also like to point out that this particular piece has been exhibited all over the world with no complaints or investigations of this type which lends me to think that the climate in this country is perhaps overly sensitive.

The fact that the gallery have reported this on arrival when in fact they would have been well aware of the nature of this piece well in advance stinks to me of publicity seeking.

Dan

dougv
dougv Site Moderator 108357 forum postsdougv vcard England3 Constructive Critique Points
27 Sep 2007 - 12:16 AM

Well all I see are two children playing.
As far as I am concerned it isn't pornographic and there must be thousands of photographs like this around the world taken by mums and dads of their children in similar states of undress.

Does that make the people who took them Paedophiles or Pornographers?
Do they need to take them to the nearest Police station to have them confiscated?

I think not.

It's just today's sanitised society telling people what they can and can't look at again.

I despair, I really do.
Sad

stolzy
stolzy  83753 forum posts7 Constructive Critique Points
27 Sep 2007 - 7:39 AM

I also suspected a publicity scam in behalf of the exhibition. Interesting that this picture has been displayed all over the world and a book which contains it is available on your high street now without this kind of attention.
I don't suspect Elton John in this, he is a major and serious collector of photography and I doubt he needs the publicity.

Quote: Does that make the people who took them Paedophiles or Pornographers?

Unfortunately, according to the law (which apparently has little leeway), it does.

Quote: I despair, I really do.

Probably a reasonable reaction under the circs.

Quote: I sincerely hope that the CPS will see common sense

Opinion on R4s Front Row programme yesterday was that the police will pass it on to the CPS who will pass it on to the DPP who will drop it like a hot brick - I imagine the picture will be withdrawn from the exhibition.

macroman
macroman  1115312 forum posts England
27 Sep 2007 - 11:05 AM

Interesting!

Now all those people who have had a look at it on the web, will have it stored somewhere in the bowels of their PC's.

Expect a call from the police any time Wink

conrad
conrad e2 Member 910870 forum postsconrad vcard 116 Constructive Critique Points
27 Sep 2007 - 11:12 AM

I wonder what would have happened if the photographer had been an EPZ member and had posted it on here - at the very least I would have expected comments about the technical "quality" of the shot.

Last Modified By conrad at 27 Sep 2007 - 11:12 AM
macroman
macroman  1115312 forum posts England
27 Sep 2007 - 11:20 AM

My 18 month old grandaughter has an endearing habit off lifting her dress and showing her belly button with a wide grin.

i was taking a pic of her t'other day and just as I clicked the shutter, bingo up came the dress.

Should I delete the pic or keep it?
Yo judge by some current attitudes I may be a pervert, for havinga natural pic of a child having fun.

Lou_C
Lou_C  7755 forum posts England2 Constructive Critique Points
27 Sep 2007 - 11:49 AM

Personally I dont like it at all. Even as a photo I think its a badly taken snapshot, but I certainly wouldnt want my little girls private parts on show for every weirdo to get their rocks off too Sad

Of course kids frolic around naked, but it doesnt mean the entire world has to see them. If that makes me old fashioned or a fuddy duddy then so be it

paulcr
paulcr e2 Member 91536 forum postspaulcr vcard Ireland9 Constructive Critique Points
27 Sep 2007 - 12:22 PM


Quote: I have to say that the work is controversial but Nan Goldin is known for her cutting edge work.


So what if she's well known. It still doesn't give her full license to do as she pleases in the name of supposed art.


Quote: Personally I dont like it at all. Even as a photo I think its a badly taken snapshot, but I certainly wouldnt want my little girls private parts on show for every weirdo to get their rocks off too

Of course kids frolic around naked, but it doesnt mean the entire world has to see them. If that makes me old fashioned or a fuddy duddy then so be it

I totally agree.


Quote: there must be thousands of photographs like this around the world taken by mums and dads of their children in similar states of undress.
Does that make the people who took them Paedophiles or Pornographers?

No but most don't exhibit them in galleries for those who ARE paedophiles to see.


I think the image should be returned to the parents (not the photographer) and not be allowed to be exhibited.

Paul

culturedcanvas
27 Sep 2007 - 12:27 PM


Quote: If that makes me old fashioned or a fuddy duddy then so be it

Probably the opposite.

As I recall running around naked in the garden (and no it wasnt last week) as a child. Playing in the poolk with nothing on with family as a child.

Not to mention my Dad coming from a family of 9 and everyone sharing clothes, baths, beds etc.

It is a MODERN issue that we have become paranoid about the nakedness of children.


Quote: but I certainly wouldnt want my little girls private parts on show for every weirdo to get their rocks off to

Your quote above illustrates this perfectly. It's not the nakedness of the child that is the issue, nor the viewing of a naked child.

It is the viewing of a naked child by someone with those tendancies that is the problem. However I would like to remind you that 99.9% of the population are not peadophiles and find nothing remotely sexual in seeing naked children.

Once again .. exactly the opposite. So am I going to live in a climate of fear and paranoia because of a small number of people with these perversions?

No

Dan

Krakman
Krakman  73615 forum posts Scotland
27 Sep 2007 - 12:31 PM

Pornography is in the eye of the viewer. I think that by covering up child nudity, it only encourages the prurient to become facinated. If we all walked down the streets naked, nudity would quickly lose its fascination.

Anyone who has ever had to change a nappy, or gone to the beach with small children, will know that child nudity is not something wierd, or disgusting. Covering it up and taking it out of the public gaze is only going to encourage wierdos and child pornography.

As for Nan Goldin, she is one of the most influential and ground-breaking photographers of this century. Whether or not you ultimately like her pictures, hopefully we can come up with a rather more insightful analysis than "badly taken snapshot". Of course it's a badly taken snapshot... And?

paulcr
paulcr e2 Member 91536 forum postspaulcr vcard Ireland9 Constructive Critique Points
27 Sep 2007 - 12:52 PM


Quote: As for Nan Goldin, she is one of the most influential and ground-breaking photographers of this century.

Again I say, so what. It still doesn't give her full license to do or exihibit anything she chooses.
Paul

BlindLemon
27 Sep 2007 - 12:59 PM

I'm in agreement with Paul on this.

What is groundbreaking about this shot ?

Two kids playing in the kitchen, shot in a deliberately snap shot style - nothing groundbreaking about that.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.