'art' seized in child pornography row.
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/7013806.stm

at the baltic galleries gateshead. apparantly it belongs to elton john, anyone else see this?

it does belong to Elton

Good old Nan Goldin, she will be shocking and appalling people when she's in nursing homes.


I've seen it, its not pornographic at all. unless you are a sicko!

you have to remember that in the New World Order art is not allowed to offend ANYONE.

ha ha ha, well whats the point then?

'art' as the authorities see it.

art is the single most powerfl visionary tool that humanity has, and anything visionary is bound to offend someone, especially those who are extremely fond of the status quo. Let's shake things up

Elton John is gay and the belly dancing girls are girls. Therefore, this piece was not intended for pornographic imagery and the message of the piece is more likely commentary or purely non-sexual aesthetic.

By assessing this piece as pornographic, the assessors are either claiming that Elton John is a closet pedophile (a claim which desires more solid proof than a assessment of a piece of art) or are insinuating that intention and message of a piece are irrelevant to its assessment which undermines all conceptual art.

what those people are truly saying is what is INSIDE OF THEIR HEARTS

the most judgemental people out there are that way because they see what the judge inside of them, whether it be paedophilia, homosexual love, etc.

So you're saying that the cynicism of the assessors are leading them to a biased assessment?

I am saying that anyone whose first impression of an image of a naked child is "PORNOGRAPHY" is fucking warped and twisted themselves, and project these things onto other subjects.

I read about this earlier.

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.

glad that bunburys back.

oh. my. fuck.

please come back (more often).

kthx.

hello lady!
how have you been? good I hope.

Rob Instigator's nailed it... DGC, that venerable record company, once wanted to airbrush Spencer Elden's penis off the cover of Nevermind, until Kurt Cobain said that if they did that, then they were all closet paedophiles, and he was was going to tell the press... So they released Nevermind with the picture of a naked baby.

We have a rather disturbing view on nudity in this culture. Nudity has the power to shock in ways violence never can. It makes you wonder.

Welcome back, Cindy. Yes, the photographs in question are a severe case of attention-seeking masked through lighting that gives them an aura of artistic pretension, when in fact the crudity of what's been portrayed could have been shown with the more effective techniques used in photo journalism, where the action is captured for what it is and not for what you want it to be.

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.