PDA

View Full Version : UK pulls Nan Goldin child photo at show


Rocketta
Sep 26th, 2007, 03:02 PM
Rocker says he's owner of seized photo

27 minutes ago


Elton John said Wednesday that he owns a photo of two naked girls taken by award-winning photographer Nan Goldin that was seized by police at a British gallery over concerns it amounted to child pornography.


John confirmed ownership of "Klara and Edda Belly-Dancing" in a statement on his Web site. He said it is among 149 images comprising Goldin's "Thanksgiving" installation.


Northumbria police said the photo was taken from the BALTIC Center for Contemporary Art in Gateshead, northeastern England. They confirmed Tuesday that an image had been taken from an exhibit "to assess whether or not an offense had been committed."


Both Goldin and the gallery have declined to comment. The gallery alerted police to Goldin's photo on the eve of an exhibition featuring her work that opened Friday.


"The photograph exists as part of the installation as a whole and has been widely published and exhibited throughout the world," the 60-year-old rocker said.


"It can be found in the monograph of Ms. Goldin's works entitled `The Devil's Playground' (Phaidon, 2003), has been offered for sale at Sotheby's New York in 2002 and 2004, and has previously been exhibited in Houston, London, Madrid, New York, Portugal, Warsaw and Zurich without any objections of which we are aware."


John purchased the "Thanksgiving" installation in 1999, his statement said.
Goldin's frank and often sexually explicit work has drawn critical acclaim, as well as police attention.


In 2001, London police demanded that the Saatchi Gallery remove one of Goldin's photographs, saying it was indecent. The gallery refused, and officials later backed down, saying there was no realistic prospect of securing a conviction in the case.
___

UK pulls Nan Goldin child photo at show

Tue Sep 25, 3:29 PM ET


A picture taken by award-winning American photographer Nan Goldin has been pulled from a British gallery over concerns it amounted to child pornography, a newspaper reported Tuesday.


The Daily Telegraph said the picture, which was seized by police, shows two young girls, one sitting with her legs wide apart. It did not say whether the girls were naked.


The BALTIC Center for Contemporary Art in northern England alerted police to Goldin's photo on the eve of an exhibition featuring her work which opened Friday, the paper said.


A Northumbria Police spokeswoman confirmed that an image of a child was removed from the exhibit and said it was being looked over by prosecutors "to assess whether or not an offense had been committed." She spoke anonymously in line with force policy and declined to disclose the nature of the offense police were investigating.


Goldin did not immediately return e-mails seeking comment. The BALTIC gallery, which is located in Gateshead, Tyne and Wear, about 280 miles north of London, also declined to speak about the incident.


The gallery's Web site advertises Goldin's exhibition, called "Thanksgiving," as running from Sept. 21 to Jan 6, 2008 and says it is from pop star Elton John's photography collection.


Goldin's frank and often sexually explicit work has drawn critical acclaim — as well as police attention.


The Washington, D.C., native has been taking pictures since the age of 15 and was widely praised for her first book, "The Ballad of Sexuality," which displayed intimate details from her own life.


Earlier this year, Goldin was awarded Sweden's Hasselblad Foundation International Award in Photography in recognition of her contribution to the field of documentary photography.


But in 2001, London police demanded that the capital's Saatchi Gallery remove one of Goldin's photographs, saying it was indecent. The gallery refused, and officials later backed down, saying there was no realistic prospect of securing a conviction in the case.


Goldin divides her time between London, Paris and New York, according to a biography posted to her gallery's Web site. She has exhibited her work around the world.

jellybelly
Sep 26th, 2007, 03:03 PM
Degenerate :rolleyes:

Barrie_Dude
Sep 26th, 2007, 03:05 PM
Degenerate :rolleyes:
Yeah! And Elton John is a degenerate, too! :ras:

*abby*
Sep 26th, 2007, 03:34 PM
why the hell would any normal person want a photo of two little girls naked???
the mind boggles

Rocketta
Sep 26th, 2007, 04:07 PM
why the hell would any normal person want a photo of two little girls naked???
the mind boggles

1. he bought a collection of Nan Goldin photography of which one of the pictures happen to be of the two girls

and

2. You clearly are not familiar with Nan Goldin's work if you don't know the answer to that question.

Vamos.
Sep 26th, 2007, 05:32 PM
I really don't think I want to be familiar with Nan Goldin's work. :unsure::tape:

griffin
Sep 26th, 2007, 05:39 PM
That's a shame. She's probably one of the most important, influential photographers of her generation.

*abby*
Sep 26th, 2007, 06:16 PM
2. You clearly are not familiar with Nan Goldin's work if you don't know the answer to that question.

a picture of two naked children is not art (imo) it is paedophilia and i do not want to be familiar with such "work".
what if someone got aroused by said picture and went and attacked a child? may sound stupid but stupider things have happened.
i just think a person in a position to have their work available to anyone anywhere should be a bit more careful of their content.

Rocketta
Sep 26th, 2007, 06:23 PM
a picture of two naked children is not art (imo) it is paedophilia and i do not want to be familiar with such "work".
what if someone got aroused by said picture and went and attacked a child? may sound stupid but stupider things have happened.
i just think a person in a position to have their work available to anyone anywhere should be a bit more careful of their content.

honestly, I don't know how to respond to this post without sounding condescending it's soooo far off base. :eek:

*abby*
Sep 26th, 2007, 06:48 PM
go ahead, condescend away, im interested in having a discussion with you

Vamos.
Sep 26th, 2007, 06:57 PM
while I don't agree with *abby*...I still fail to see how anyone gets interested in this type of stuff. :yawn:

Although I do understand this judgement is due to my own personal preference. A picture of two naked children just doesn't appeal to me. But then again I am not into art. :shrug:

griffin
Sep 26th, 2007, 07:03 PM
a picture of two naked children is not art (imo) it is paedophilia and i do not want to be familiar with such "work".
what if someone got aroused by said picture and went and attacked a child? may sound stupid but stupider things have happened.

You aren't really suggesting we censor anything that might inspire someone to do something stupid, are you?

What if some sicko might get aroused by images of women? Contact sports might (might? DOES) inspire some fans to do stupid, violent things. David Hinckley was so obsessed with Jodie Foster, he shot Ronald Reagan.

Granted, she's made some turkeys, but I don't think we should ban her films because of it.

I don't think the mere possibility that soemthing might lead someone somewhere to do something evil is a rational reason to censor it.

I would also disagree with the premise that nudity automatically equals sex.

Rocketta
Sep 26th, 2007, 07:04 PM
go ahead, condescend away, im interested in having a discussion with you

I'll respond but I'm a little busy at work and can't type as much as I would like.

Sally Struthers
Sep 26th, 2007, 07:05 PM
while I am all for expressing yourself through art, I am not interested in being someone's prison bitch so I would not have taken a picture in the first place that could be construed as child porn :lol:

Ellery
Sep 26th, 2007, 07:07 PM
I think I read on another article yesterday that there was a picture representing a naked young girl spreading her thighs :unsure: That's a bit :scared:

*abby*
Sep 26th, 2007, 07:11 PM
yeah, as far as im aware, one of the girls in the picture had her legs spread.
why pose a child in that way for art?
im not suggesting that we censor everything but you have to draw a line somewhere

griffin
Sep 26th, 2007, 07:30 PM
why pose a child in that way for art?

From what I've seen of the picture (which I will admit was a small digital version of the original) it looks like the girls were playing, and she just took pictures of it. So while she certainly made a conscious decision about which images to present, I don't think the kids were "posed"

Rocketta
Sep 26th, 2007, 09:31 PM
From what I've seen of the picture (which I will admit was a small digital version of the original) it looks like the girls were playing, and she just took pictures of it. So while she certainly made a conscious decision about which images to present, I don't think the kids were "posed"

I haven't seen a picture of it but I know the type of stuff Nan does and it's always social commentary through documentary images.

but even if they were posed ala Sally Mann doesn't mean it has any sexual connotation to it. Children love to run around naked and it has nothing to do with sex so if someone is trying to capture the innonence, or the naivete of children, or the lost innonence through art let them. I've yet to see a truly pornographic image that could ever be mistaken for art. :shrug:

Here's a controversial picture by Sally Mann and it is posed but it is also natural.

http://www.skundberg.no/oystein/kunst/sally300.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/148/417963676_2e2b7575c1.jpg?v=0

although not naked.......she has a cigarette in her hands and that's definitely has been used as a sexy image thing...

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/78/167604692_ba38c57225.jpg?v=0

Rocketta
Sep 26th, 2007, 09:34 PM
now Nan's stuff generally holds no punches.... ;)

http://www.url.it/oltreluna/artepolitica/artisteviolenza/img/nan%20goldin.jpg

*abby*
Sep 26th, 2007, 10:26 PM
i just wouldnt want naked pictures of my kids doing the rounds on the internet, even if it was art.
i googled nan goldin and from what i can see most of her pictures are people in various states of undress. obviously our opinions on what is art differ, sorry but i just cant see it

Rocketta
Sep 26th, 2007, 10:53 PM
i just wouldnt want naked pictures of my kids doing the rounds on the internet, even if it was art.
i googled nan goldin and from what i can see most of her pictures are people in various states of undress. obviously our opinions on what is art differ, sorry but i just cant see it

but it's not about whether people agree on the subject matter being art, good art, or bad art.....but if it's pornography. Pornography does not equal or equate nudity. So to call pictures pornography just because the subjects are naked says more about the person doing the labeling than the person who took it. Nor is it about whether you would want your kids pictures on the internet or not but the right of other people to express their artistic ability as they see fit within certain guidelines.