Is It Art? Nan Goldin's 'Klara And Edda Belly Dancing'

[TopicStarter]

Is it art? Or is it something else? What is the line between art and something else? Is there really a line? Is this innocent? Is it exploitation? Do the kids know what they are doing? How do we draw the line?

Photo shown below...

News Article:
Police have seized photograph 'Klara And Edda Belly Dancing', which was taken by controversial, female American artist Nan Goldin, because it may be considered child pornography - and Elton John's personal website has reacted.

The photograph, which was part of exhibition series called 'Thanksgiving' from the Sir Elton John photographic collection, may have breached child pornography laws.

The exhibition gallery, which the picture did not appear in, as it was seized by police, warns: "We would like to advise you that this exhibition contains some material of a sensitive nature. It may include explicit language, nudity, sexual imagery or violence."

The photograph 'Klara And Edda Belly Dancing' of two young girls, taken by Goldin. One of the girls is depicted sitting on the ground with her legs spread wide apart. Further details of the picture are unknown.

Police removed the image from the Baltic Art Gallery the day before it was to be viewed by the public. The inappropriate photograph is currently being examined by police while Crown Prosecution Service lawyers have offered their consult.

One Northumbria police spokesman explained Monday: "The circumstances around who may have been involved in the production of the image and who may have owned it or owns it forms part of the investigation."

"We attended the Baltic Centre last Thursday at the invitation of the management who were seeking advice about an item for an exhibition prior to it going on public display."

"This item is being assessed and Northumbria Police, in consultation with the CPS, is investigating the circumstances surrounding it. The incident is ongoing and investigations are now being carried out."

One viewer of the gallery claimed today: "Some of the images are quite uncomfortable but I saw nothing that could be construed as pornographic.

"There a man holding his penis, which is a bit odd, and pictures of people in coffins who appear to be dead but may not be."

"There are three exhibitions with very bizarre content and all carry warnings. Nan Goldin's was the most uncomfortable of the three but there was certainly nothing in any of them that I found grossly offensive."

Nan Goldin has created other questionable art involving young girls in the past - and many question if Nan plays off the children for her success.

Now Elton John's personal website has reacted: The photograph entitled "Klara and Edda belly-dancing" (1998) is one of 149 images comprising the "Thanksgiving" installation by renowned US photographer Nan Goldin.

The photograph exists as part of the installation as a whole and has been widely published and exhibited throughout the world. 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.

http://www.postchronicle.com/news/or...12105813.shtml

---
UPDATE: 10/26/07

LONDON (Oct. 26) - A photograph owned by Elton John which was seized by police at a gallery as part of a child pornography probe is not an indecent image, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said on Friday.

The photo, entitled "Klara And Edda Belly-Dancing," had been removed from an exhibition at the Baltic gallery in Gateshead last month after management had sought advice before it was put on public display.

The photograph is of two young girls, one of whom has her legs apart.

Northumbria CPS said it had told police there was insufficient evidence to justify proceedings for possession or distribution of an indecent photograph.

It said it had investigated the picture by U.S. photographer Nan Goldin in 2001 when it was part of another exhibition at the Saatchi gallery in London and had decided then that it was not indecent.

Kerrie Bell, head of CPS Northumbria's South Unit, added: "In order to prove that the photograph is indecent we must be satisfied that contemporary standards of propriety are so different now to what they were in 2001, that it is more likely than not that a court will conclude that the photograph is indecent. I am not satisfied that is the case.

"Even if the photograph was now considered to be indecent, a defendant would be able to raise a legitimate defence, given that the photograph was distributed for the purposes of display in a contemporary art gallery after having been deemed not to be indecent by the earlier investigation."

Called "Thanksgiving," the Gateshead exhibition was due to have shown 149 of Goldin's pictures.

Klara And Edda Belly-Dancing had been exhibited in the Saatchi gallery in London in 2001 as part of the "I Am A Camera" exhibition.

Elton John had said on his Web site that the photograph was part of an installation which had been exhibited in Houston, London, Madrid, New York, Portugal, Warsaw and Zurich "without any objections of which we are aware" and was offered for sale at Sotheby's in New York in 2002 and 2004.

Goldin is renowned for her work among gay and transvestite communities in the United States.

http://news.aol.com/entertainment/st...26120009990001

Nan Goldin - Klara and Edda Belly Dancing

[pornoking]

Of course this is art. Anyone who would try to classify this as child pornography is messed up in the head. It's a picture of two young girls playing innocently...and anyone who has children (I have 4 daughters) knows that young girls often play around in the nude. If you find this picture to be erotic, then you are fucked up in the head and need to go cut your penis off.

Pornoking....out

[Amelia]

As the mother of 4, I do know that children play innocently naked. They also play innocently clothed. So why expose a child unnecessarily? Why not capture an image of them that does not make them vulnerable to pedophiles gawking at their innocent play? If this were my daughter, I would be horrified that some creep may be looking at this image in a lustful manner. Since "art" for one person may not be for another, I pose the simple question, why use this picture? Why expose them when it is optional?

[Billy bob]

I dont know Nan's relation to these girls but I doubt she took the pictures for ill means regardless of her kindred ties or no. Apparently the children's parent's were approving as it appears to be part of child play. From reviewing a good part of Ms. Goldin's photowork, I do not see any motive to display eroticism even when photographing adults semiclad or nude. They are simply are without clothing. The toddler displayed was not coerced to any erotic stance but imitating something she most likely saw on a movieand imitated it with her sister. I don't think it is worth slapping Elton John in cuffs for and embarrassing him for his possession of it . Evidently Elton had an appreciation formuch of Ms. Goldin's work and this image is singular (that I am aware) of minors in play. not to be portrayed as cp

[Johnybegud]

... it is an innocent picture of two girls playing. What is disturbing is that they have been allowed to be exposed in this way to the general public. It is intended to shock and it is IMHO intended to arouse those sad buggers within our society. In that case it can only be described as pornographic. The photographer and the childs parents should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this to happen and I hope action is taken against them.

[Bob Sedgewicke]

I’ve no idea whether this is art or not - it’s necessarily presented here out of context and I’m not familiar with Nan Goldin’s work. I’m much more inclined to believe it is art than pornography, however, and I’m absolutely sure that this image should not be suppressed.

Firstly, it is extremely unlikely that this image is intended to be erotic. But every time a knee-jerk or – as seems likely to be the case here – “just to be on the safe-side” reaction leads to censorship of pictures involving children, it reinforces the idea that such censorship is correct whether or not it is. If anything sexualises the children in this picture, it is the labelling of it as such, not the taking of the photograph: how do you think these obviously innocently playing children would feel if they found out that their picture had been removed from an exhibition because it was disgusting?

Unfortunately, despite the intent of the photographer and subjects, some people may get aroused by this picture. That’s wrong, clearly. But some people get aroused by dressing up in furry costumes, worshipping feet and some very probably go home all hot and bothered after visiting a public swimming pool, a park in the summer time or the beach where scantily-clad children have been playing. We can’t, fortunately, ban children from enjoying themselves in public in case some pervert gets his kicks from it. We should do all we can to protect children from adults who want to harm them, and all we can to help the adults we find in this state of affairs before they do something everyone will regret. It’s worth noting that the children in this picture are in no danger from any viewer of it, unlike, possibly, those innocently playing in the park.

What I’m trying to say is that we shouldn’t impoverish our culture on the basis of errant interpretation of artworks, even if misinterpretation is likely. As well as diminishing artists’ ability to say what they want, other bizarre and saddening things result, such as parents being demonised for (for example), taking innocent pictures of their kids in the bath. Sexual deviants will get kicks out of the strangest things, regardless of what is censored and what is not: punish the guilty, not the innocent.

[Trinity]

What confuses me is why anybody would want to have that picture, other than the parent of the children.
Why oh why would you want a photo of two strange children playing, one of them naked, WHY WHY WHY?
I dont understand it, thats not art, then again, I dont see hanging a pee'd on bedsheet up on display as being art either, to me art is the likes of Monet (my favourite), not naked children.
If hung that picture on my wall, I would have any visitors to my home wondering what the hell I was thinking.
The whole 'its just two children innocently playing' thing doesnt fly with me, at the end of the day it is two strange children playing naked (and semi naked) and I just dont understand anybody wanting to own that photo, and I especially dont understand why anyone wants to hang it in a public gallery.
Long answer short...NO, I personally do not feel that that picture is art and I sure wouldnt pay money to buy it, hell, I wouldnt take it for free, no insult to the kids on the picture, but they are just two random kids, I dont know them and sure as hell dont want to see them playing naked, again, who would!?!!

[Trinity]

[quote=Bob Sedgewicke;11]

What I’m trying to say is that we shouldn’t impoverish our culture on the basis of errant interpretation of artworks, even if misinterpretation is likely. As well as diminishing artists’ ability to say what they want, other bizarre and saddening things result, such as parents being demonised for (for example), taking innocent pictures of their kids in the bath.QUOTE]

Parents innocently taking pictures of their kids in the bath when they are teeny is one thing, that is for a record of how cute their kids were at that age, they shouldnt be demonised for that, what IS disturbing is why you would then want to publish those pictures for the world to see.
So I dont see any correlation in that and this picture.
As for impoverishing our culture by not showing pictures like this, is our culture truly less rich for not seeing pictures of naked children? I think not!

[Bob Sedgewicke]

Originally Posted by Trinity

What confuses me is why anybody would want to have that picture, other than the parent of the children.
Why oh why would you want a photo of two strange children playing, one of them naked, WHY WHY WHY?
I dont understand it, thats not art...

[snip]

You don't think this is art? Fair enough.

The only way I can see your comments being germane to this discussion, though, is if you intend to insinuate that the only possible motive for anyone to pay attention to this photograph (other than the parents of the children) would be "suspect". Removing a photograph from an art exhibition and having the police investigate those responsible for it seems a bit heavy-handed if done only because (in your opinion) it isn't art.

The bridge in Monet's garden (with all the water lilies around it) - is that only of interest to Monet and his gardener? Perhaps the Mona Lisa isn't really all that important to anyone but Lisa's husband?

Nearly all art photography (and painting, for that matter) involves subjects that are of no interest in themselves to the majority of the audience. If the artist fails to make the subject of wider interest, he won't sell many works. That may have happened here, or it may not, but it's completely irrelevant to the involvement of the police and the removal of this picture from the exhibition.

[dr_rock]

As far as art is concerned I don't think it is very interesting, forgodsake I get bored looking at my own family's photo albums. But I certainly don't think there is anything wrong or indecent about the photo. In fact just because of today's media obsession with child porn i think this photo should be displayed to make the point that it is no big deal and to make it clear to paedophiles that they are sick to be aroused by something as innocent as children playing! If all art showing naked children is banned it's just telling paedos that they are right to think of children as sexual objects! Some weirdos are aroused by shoes... should we ban shoes?

NB: why does microsoft spell checker want to correct (paedophile) child-lover to (pedophile) foot-lover?
get a free PS3: http://sonyps3giveaway.co.uk/index.php?referral=395543