[Tokolosh]

A link for anyone interested in seeing what the commotion is all about.
http://www.4debatetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5

I don't have a problem with any of Nan Goldin's works.

[alyasa]

Originally Posted by sarramkrop

But do compare the pictures and notice the sharp difference in the way that they come across. On the one above, the first thing that comes up to your mind is the corruption of an innocent mind through a culture that is based on money and greed, or more simply the inability for a young baby to work out what society has in store for it. You don't certainly think about such a thing as a little kid's sexuality. On the pictures discussed on this thread, there is a marked case of using a child's behaviour as a vehicle for not making a point that comes across as straightforward and unambiguous. Draw your conclusions from that.

You certainly, make a very good point, though I would feel that; within the context of each indiviual case; the two are not so dissimilar... Taken at face value, the photographs that have been discussed on this thread are certainly ambiguous at best, and questionable at worst. But, to take them at face value would be defeating the point; there is a common thread to the photographs and an underlying theme that contexualizes and frames them within a specific, thought-provoking mindset. When viewed through this cultural reference and context, the ambiguity of the pictures decreases markedly, to the point where it does not even become an issue. Like all art, and especially, art after the post-modernist era, to take the piece in question at face value would be missing the point altogether. Thusly, in that context, the worries and concerns of the record company executives in displaying a picture of a naked baby on the cover of Nevermind are grossly unjustifed, as are the worries that such art can be constituted as child pornography. Granted, it would take a deeper understanding of the theme involved with the pictures, and it would be fairly thought-provoking, to say the least, but then wouldn't that be the point of all art? Deeper understanding? Correct me if I have made a mistake... Thank you for reading.

Originally Posted by alyasa

You certainly, make a very good point, though I would feel that; within the context of each indiviual case; the two are not so dissimilar... Taken at face value, the photographs that have been discussed on this thread are certainly ambiguous at best, and questionable at worst. But, to take them at face value would be defeating the point; there is a common thread to the photographs and an underlying theme that contexualizes and frames them within a specific, thought-provoking mindset. When viewed through this cultural reference and context, the ambiguity of the pictures decreases markedly, to the point where it does not even become an issue. Like all art, and especially, art after the post-modernist era, to take the piece in question at face value would be missing the point altogether. Thusly, in that context, the worries and concerns of the record company executives in displaying a picture of a naked baby on the cover of Nevermind are grossly unjustifed, as are the worries that such art can be constituted as child pornography. Granted, it would take a deeper understanding of the theme involved with the pictures, and it would be fairly thought-provoking, to say the least, but then wouldn't that be the point of all art? Deeper understanding? Correct me if I have made a mistake... Thank you for reading.

I understand where you are coming from, but I'm not taking Nan Goldin's pictures at face value. I have been familiar with her work for some time, so I've had more than enough time to think about what I've posted.

[alyasa]

I apologize, I'm not implyng that you're the one who is taking the pictures at face value... I do believe that the picture in question, 'Klara and Edda Belly Dancing', has some sinister overtones; this has become a debate of what the public and society in general is willing to accept as art, and no longer that of the artistic integrity of the artist or the work of the artist. That is what I believe, and that is what I believe happened with Nevermind, though albeit on a less darker level, with regards to the context in which the cover has been placed. Accept or not, the picture in question has high value in the framework of art, which begs the question, how much is art worth? What role does it really play in society and if any, how important is that role for people in general, non-artists included? Or is art, ultimately, beneath the surface and veneer, skin deep?

[Rob Instigator]

these are all good questions alyasa

personally, I think that the image was intende to be graphic in a way that recalls everyone's previous exoperiences with pornography, or hustler's "beaver" shots, and that she did this deliberately.
I do not like it, but art is for adults, not for children, and an art show should not be closed down for the sake of this image.

[Rob Instigator]

art is the only thing that matters to me.

it among otyher things like tasty food and good drugs (fine wine, green cheeba etc.) are what makes life worthwhile. there has to eb a reason for our lives. some people find their reason in religion, or trying to be good to get to heaven, others find no reason at all. I say it is where you seek i, and I am alive, and go to work to earn bucks, so I can enjoy art in all it's varieties.

what lasts from a culture? sometimes it's philosophy (the art of thought) it's music , it's visual arts, these are the only contributions that truly matter.

all my opinion of course

and robert plant and allison krause suck ass.

[alyasa]

Not only that, I think she wants us to recall our innocence. How was being free for you, when you were a child? Did it mean, hiding yourself behind shame and humiliation? Was being a child ever meaning anything but being innocent? Did a child question his or her integrity or humanity if he or she were with someone they trusted? No these are questions for adults to ponder, for people whose responsibility it is to question, to question.

[Rob Instigator]

personally, I hated being a kid. I could not get to 18 fast enough, from the first I remember I was sick of being a child. growing up is the very best thing in all the world. I can do what I want when I want with whom I want where I want. being a child is overrated.

[alyasa]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

personally, I hated being a kid. I could not get to 18 fast enough, from the first I remember I was sick of being a child. growing up is the very best thing in all the world. I can do what I want when I want with whom I want where I want. being a child is overrated.

And so you had dreams, all kids want to get to be an adult and do all the cool stuff that adults got to do, and so you did... But again, do kids ever have the baggage of guilt and shame that most adults carry for most of what they do? Children view this world through very different lenses, and I can say we would be very much fortunate among men and women, if we could see the world through their innocence. But, responsibilty, as adults, means that we don't get to view it that way, or as much as we want to. There is no greater ideal or dream than that of innocence.

"innocence has a power evil cannot imagine" - tagline from Pan's Labyrinth.

[Rob Instigator]

children are NOT innocent. They are naive. some Children are just as twisted and warped and MEAN and evil and cruel as adults, they just are not REFINED about it. They are blunt force objects instead of precise needles.

the idea of childhood innocence is a falsehood, a dreamy ideal created in the late 19th century.

[alyasa]

But a child is innocent. The dictionary definition of the word refers to a state free of guilt, lacking in intent, or unknowledgable of evil; or the attendant, myriad points involved in evil. Children, for lack of a better term, know no better. I believe in my hearts of hearts, that we suffer the children, for the sins of our fathers. But it is my belief, and that, most likely, counts for very little. But a child's innocence cannot be denied, even as insufferable twats, children can still find wonder and joy in the simplest things. Those "twisted and warped and MEAN and evil and cruel" children you mentioned are sad and in need of more love, more so than well-adjusted, happy children. It is just that they are more often overlooked than other children, or if they are noticed, receive punishment more than praise, so it becomes a vicious never-ending cycle of pain and guilt. It gets so, that some children never receive praise at all. Of course, these are just my thoughts, the true intent and meaning behind the picture perhaps can best be explained by someone more familiar with the artist and the art. It could just be a statement on the twisted, warped cultural zeitgeist of today that has produced people who reward children for sexual favours. All the more reason that we see the innocence in the picture and not the warped.

[Rob Instigator]

that is all true, but only if "innocence" is defined as Free From Guilt. children feel no guilt because they have not learned it yet. guilt is part of the social fabric and MUST be learned to maintain a proper society. adults without guilt are psycopaths, hurting anyone without remorse, the worst kind of adult.

[ALIEN ANAL]

 

OMG CHILD PRAWN

[alyasa]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

that is all true, but only if "innocence" is defined as Free From Guilt. children feel no guilt because they have not learned it yet. guilt is part of the social fabric and MUST be learned to maintain a proper society. adults without guilt are psycopaths, hurting anyone without remorse, the worst kind of adult.

From my own experience, children are free of hang-ups and insecurities that plague most adults; some children grow up fast, of course, faster than other children, but there is still something that holds them back, their lack of wile, for example. In this respect, children differ from adults, even at their worst. Rare is the child who will not cease to misbehave after punishment, or even, a spanking. I admit some children are definitely difficult, but there is a difference between a child misbehaving and an adult misbehaving, I believe.

[floatingslowly]

Originally Posted by ALIEN ANAL

OMG CHILD PRAWN

YOU SICK BASTARD.

stop crustacean exploitation!!

LONG LIVE TASTY!!

three eyes are better than one!

DANCE, SUCKER. DANCE!


PS: this thread makes me wonder where mellysmellsdoom is.

[The Usher]

If I ever go totally insane, the first thing I'm gonna do is cut Elton John's fuckin head off. This man is such a bad person.

(This has nothing to do with the child porn story).

[phoenix]

people just need to move on from the fact that some artists really do intend to create controversy. or sensation.

it seems all dandy when it happens in real life.

yet in art it creates such attention. go figure. thats our job.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Bunbury

Shock has been apart of nearly all of Nan Goldin's "non-commercial" work. Personally I cant quite decide wether her intention is to be shocking, or if her work is shocking simply by default due to its primarily marginal/minority figure subject matter.

I have The Devils Playground, and when I first saw the photograph in question, I personally did find it to be shocking. It is apart of her "from here to maternity" series and basically depicts 2 girls playing/belly dancing, with one young girl lying on the floor naked with her legs spread.
Yes, its only 2 girls playing and resembles embarassing nude snapshots taken by parents of their own kids in photo albums everywhere but it does have a sickening feeling about it.

That said, I think any artist that combines children and sexuality is just looking for quick attention via controversey no matter what they say their intention was (Sally Mann etc).

I would take a photo of the picture but my book is at home, and I wont be until October.

oh! she's back, she's back!

hello ms. sontag.

[alyasa]

Shock is a valid artistic technique. Remember Freezer Burn/I Wanna Be Your Dog? Imagine hearing that in the 80s for the first time... Anyway, people viewing this piece should really make an effort to distance themselves from what they might perceive as 'paedophilic' intent within the picture and look deep within themselves... Definitely not for children, I think...

[Bunbury]

Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor

I don't find the image pornographic. Anyone who has little kids know they love to run around in the nude. When they do, it's one of the most innocent activities ever. I feel some of that innocence is lost when the picture is put on display for all the world to see. Viewing the picture doesn't change the act, but for some it does change their perception of the image. Personally, I guess I could understand it better if I knew Nan's relationship with the two girls. If it's her sisters two daughters and Nan just happened to be visiting and snapped this when the girls were playing, I can understand that. If a stranger asked Nan to come over and then instructs her daughters to start playing and maybe get naked like you sometimes do just so Nan can capture that sort of image (especially if the parents are doing it for money)......then I do find that disturbing.

I agree, any innocence the photograph had was lost as soon as it was reproduced in books and put on display. From what I can remember, I think the two girls are a friends daughter and niece and it was taken while she was visiting their house (who exactly would want a photograph like that of their daughter to be exhibited?)

I think people find it shocking because:
1. Its a naked child, which is an unquestionable taboo, and
2. because they probably see it as exploitive.

Alot of people probably see Nan Goldin as a photographer who exploits her subjects but I think she does the opposite and "celebrates" them. Her books have a family photo-album/ Journal like quality to them. Shes friends/family with practically all of her subjects and lives amongst them (Devils Playground really focuses on certain individuals in her life compared to The Ballad/I'll be Your Mirror etc.) There is a quote in Devils Playground that sums it up, it goes something like " I took photographs to remember everything that I had...now it only reminds me of what I lost"

I find someone like Diane Arbus to be more exploitive, despite her asking subjects for their permission to be photographed. To me she basically hunted down and "shot" freaks.

That said, the camera is exploitive no matter what a persons intention is.

If a stranger asked Nan to come over and then instructs her daughters to start playing and maybe get naked like you sometimes do just so Nan can capture that sort of image (especially if the parents are doing it for money)......then I do find that disturbing.

For some reason I think that is the case. Which is sad. There are other series in the book with Parents sharing a bed with their 5-6 yr old and having sex while he (and Nan) watches/giggles/ jumps up and down. Basically its voyeuristic and alot of it does seem staged but I still think its a really good book.