Elton John Poll: news story

[Pure]

questions, are the cops doing their duty protecting kids or is this a bum rap? i'm unable to find the image on the 'net, but if anyone has a link....

http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212105813.shtml
Published: Sep 26, 2007

Nan Goldin Klara And Edda Belly Dancing Child Porn?
Elton John Reacts
by Jack Ryan

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.
Related: Nan Goldin Photo Yanked From Exhibit

==
description of picture:

Two girls of maybe 6-8.
One girl is standing, facing camera, in a makeshift play outfit. She might be dancing or posing. One arm is extended.
One leg is bare and her panties are showing.
She is looking down at Second girl.

Second girl is completely nude, and lying down flat, looking
up at the first girl. Her head is away from the camera and approximateley under the crotch of the standing girl. Her knees are toward the camera, in the foreground. Her lower legs are tucked under her, her heels under her bum (Picture kneeling with knees forward and knees apart, heels under one’s bum, and resting/sitting on one's heels. Then, if you can, lean back and lie down, as flat as possible. Leave the lower legs tucked.)

Her knees are spread and her genitals are visible.
The picture does not seem to erotic, and the girls don’t appear to be posed as sexy or trying to be sexy.







right wing site reporting the incident:

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/09/elton_johns_nan.html

 

[Stella_Omega]

What a stupid fucking joke.

I've just come up with a new product;

LEG TETHERS FOR TODDLERS!

Keep your child's legs unsullied, and train her to never open then in play!

 

[impressive]

questions, are the cops doing their duty protecting kids or is this a bum rap? i'm unable to find the image on the 'net, but if anyone has a link....

Photo on this site:

http://www.4debatetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5

 

[Belegon]

Now having seen the photo;

I don't think it is pornographic. Kids are blissfully unaware of the possible implications of the positions of their body. Thus, they are rightfully named "innocents".

My first thought when trying to think of why someone would call it pornographic? The person in question flashed back in their mind to a recent viewing of an adult female similarly clad in that position.

...not that they would ever admit to having viewed such a thing...

 

[Quiet_Cool]

It didn't seem to make much connection between Elton John and the photograph, save that his website spoke out given its association with the exhibit.

It also doesn't really give us a feel for what was in the photgraph, save basic details. Was the child naked? Did the photo focus on the child's crotch, or simply contain a child with spread legs?

Given the information presented, I don't really know if a conclusion can be reached. Given that, I think perhaps I shouldn't vote...

Q_C

 

[RedHairedandFriendly]

I don't believe it is art. Are the kids playing innocently? Was it staged? We don't know. I don't believe the photo is art though, but that is my opinion. Art is different to everyone. I don't quite see the need to have the photo spread all over the internet. To me IF it wasn't staged for public reaction and it was an "innocent" photo then it should sit in a photo album for the parents to bring out and embarrass the kids when they sit down to introduce their future spouses to their parents... similar to the "naked baby in the bathtub" scene folks fret about.

As a mother of three, two girls and one boy. I would never spread a photo of my kids, naked or partially clothed all over the web, nor would I sell it and my children's innocence.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

This is pretty stupid. The photo relates innocence and children playing. There is nothing overtly sexual about the photo. In fact it is less so than a thousand advertizing photos for everything from cosmetics and clothes to vodka.

Give me a break

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Photo on this site:

http://www.4debatetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5

Oh, well...

That changes things.

Now having seen the photo;

I don't think it is pornographic. Kids are blissfully unaware of the possible implications of the positions of their body. Thus, they are rightfully named "innocents".

My first thought when trying to think of why someone would call it pornographic? The person in question flashed back in their mind to a recent viewing of an adult female similarly clad in that position.

...not that they would ever admit to having viewed such a thing...

Possibly because it wasn't a child taking the picture. It's an issue of how the child is positioned and how it was "intended." Not necessarily how the children might be seen by random perverts, but how the photographer intended it to be seen in general, or how it was seen by them as they shot the image.

Honestly, I can't say it looks to be intended badly, but in terms of photgraphic quality, I can't see much of that either. It seems even less artful than the brief "Friends" video of Ross as a child dressed up like a little girl at a make-believe teaparty.

Q_C

 

[Stella_Omega]

Photo on this site:

http://www.4debatetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5

It's really adorable!

And in our present climate, disturbing in the way a use of the "N-word" would be. Which is a horrible shame.

 

[Recidiva]

I don't sexualize nudity, so for me it's not pornographic.

If the law states that naked kids are pornography, then I guess that's the answer.

I don't get it, but I think this is the result of equating nudity with sexuality.

I vote bum rap.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Its kids being kids, mine ran around naked. Not that I would photograph them.

this is worse and makes my stomach turn.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070927/ap_on_re_us/sex_tape_search;_ylt=Ao.3LU34Ah8WGuwkcDF.uRRvzwcF

 

[3113]

Here are the questions that need to be asked:

1) Was the picture, however spontaneously taken, taken by the photographer and put up for the purposes of presenting child porn?

I think we can agree that no, it wasn't. These are kids at play, including the one who is naked. The photographer didn't pose them, and likely didn't think "I've got to get this photo quick, it's going to be a real sexual turn on for perverts..."

2) Even if she didn't take this photo with the "intent" of it being kiddie porn, did she, while taking it (or afterwards), see in it's composition that it might be viewed that way--i.e., disturbingly so?

Quite possibly. The naked girl is below the dancing girl's leg and glitter is falling. The photographer could, certainly, be presenting not only a certain composition, but a question about how adults can't help putting adult interpretations on such things. Which says more about the viewers than the photographer.

3) Is there a chance that certain sickos would get off on this picture? And if so, is that reason enough to call it Kiddie Porn?

Yes, of course, there's that chance. I'm not altogether sure how this makes the art child porn. In short, my vote is this is much ado over nothing.

 

[3113]

I don't quite see the need to have the photo spread all over the internet.

You misunderstand. It *WASN'T* all over the internet until NOW with this controversy. It wasn't EVEN in the gallery showing. Allow me to re-quote the article:

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."

...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.

So here's the scenario: Elton John has a private photo collection--I don't know if this collection is on the internet for all to see, but I doubt it. The collection is going to be shown in a gallery, and this gallery has put up a warning about nudity, etc. Before the public EVER sees this photo, it's seized as kiddie porn. At which point, it's in the news and people want to see this picture; and now, whatever one image was there on the internet is all over. So neither the artist nor Elton John (I assume) spread this picture around for everyone to see and gawk at. They meant it only to appear in a gallery showing, with a warning about content.

I don't expect this to alter your perception of it was art or not, but it's wrong to accuse the photographer of posting such a picture on the web to the future embarrassment of the kids; that fault lies with the people who made a big deal about this picture and transformed it from art into a news story

 

[Stella_Omega]

I notice on that forum, someone complaining that it isn't a pretty picture, like Monet's.

Which brings up a whole 'nother issue-- the common perception that "art" is pretty and decorative.

Granted, most art is pleasing, and I sure don't want to live with disturbing images on my walls-- but an uncomfortable visual can still be 'art".

 

[ABSTRUSE]

I notice on that forum, someone complaining that it isn't a pretty picture, like Monet's.

Which brings up a whole 'nother issue-- the common perception that "art" is pretty and decorative.

Granted, most art is pleasing, and I sure don't want to live with disturbing images on my walls-- but an uncomfortable visual can still be 'art".

exactly.

Art is opinion.

 

[Pure]

child porn has not been defined properly, and perhaps cannot be.

exceptions in the name of 'art' etc. avoid the issue.

the attempted definition will speak of, i'm guessing 'child's genitals lewdly displayed.' or maybe 'child's genitals'.

well, as some postings above show, by their disagreement, 'lewd display' is hard to pin down.

'child's genitals' cannot work as criterion, e.g. the paintings of bouguereau



http://docentes.uacj.mx/fgomez/muse...uereau 1889 LAmour et Psyche enfants oleo.jpg

-----

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

i remember the 'nudist magazines' of the 60s. they did show 'everything', but generally did not sexualize it. however the 'natural' pussy was quite adequate for j o purposes.

===
thanks for the image, imp. of course by simply viewing it, it goes onto my machine, whereupon as in the story above, i'm "in possession."

 

[ozymandiask]

Note this is Northumbria police. An area with attitudes and sense perhaps more often found in the back blocks West Virginia.

 

[S-Des]

Here are the questions that need to be asked:

2) Even if she didn't take this photo with the "intent" of it being kiddie porn, did she, while taking it (or afterwards), see in it's composition that it might be viewed that way--i.e., disturbingly so?

Quite possibly. The naked girl is below the dancing girl's leg and glitter is falling. The photographer could, certainly, be presenting not only a certain composition, but a question about how adults can't help putting adult interpretations on such things. Which says more about the viewers than the photographer.

I'd say this is the toughest one. We can't know what's in the photographer's mind (unless we know her very well, and even then it's difficult to be sure). Do the police err on the side of "art" or the child? Was this a single, random shot, or part of a larger group of similar typed shots? That could help officials interperet the situation. I know that if you put two adult women (or even teenagers) in this situation, there would be no question it was sexual, so that makes it at least makes it questionable. I wonder how many times people have defended "art" when the truth was it was just the artist expressing his or her desires? I certainly wouldn't claim I knew anything was wrong here, but it's definitely not something I'd want to see.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I'd say this is the toughest one. We can't know what's in the photographer's mind (unless we know her very well, and even then it's difficult to be sure). Do the police err on the side of "art" or the child? Was this a single, random shot, or part of a larger group of similar typed shots? That could help officials interperet the situation. I know that if you put two adult women (or even teenagers) in this situation, there would be no question it was sexual, so that makes it at least makes it questionable. I wonder how many times people have defended "art" when the truth was it was just the artist expressing his or her desires? I certainly wouldn't claim I knew anything was wrong here, but it's definitely not something I'd want to see.

Do we even care what the photographer had in mind? The photo in question speaks for itself the same way a Remington or Rembrant painting does.

The photo shows two children playing. There is a certain beauty in in the innocence of their play. I can appreciate that without any puriant thoughts attached. Maybe that's because I can see a lot of difference between nudity in art and nudity in porn. Or maybe I'm just weird.

It seems to me, if I read the story correctly,this photo is one of a hundred plus photos Elton John purchased in a folio. What of the rest? Why did they pick out this one photo to scream "Kiddy Porn!" All of these photos have been displayed in Art Gallerys and Museums all over the world for several years. Why is someone complaining now?

This whole thing makes no sense to me at all.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Des, all art is the artist expressing something. it may very well be "his desires" but that soes NOT make it art.

In this case, the knee-jerk reaction is to mistrust this woman-- who it seems is the mother of these kids--and worry that she might be a pedophile. Very, very knee-jerk.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Inappropriate photo, because of the genitalia.

 

[WRJames]

I think it is a bum rap because the photo has been widely seen before and was exhibited in context. On its own, it certainly rather suggestive -- not what is the girl on floor doing -- staring up the other girl's butt?

 

[Frank Noir]

I notice on that forum, someone complaining that it isn't a pretty picture, like Monet's.

Which brings up a whole 'nother issue-- the common perception that "art" is pretty and decorative.

Granted, most art is pleasing, and I sure don't want to live with disturbing images on my walls-- but an uncomfortable visual can still be 'art".

Sure can.

My wife - who's an art dealer - once asked me who my favourite artists were. In case she came across their works and could buy them for ourselves.

My reply was: "But I don't want works by my favourite artists around the house. That would be to depressing."

 

[TE999]

This whole incident seems a trifle overblown.

It's not as if this photo was used for advertising or posted with provocative intent.

It is simply two children playing--it doesn't appear posed to me.

If a celebrity was not involved--however peripherally--this would have been on page 5 of the paper. And the police would have made a lot less of it.

But arresting Joe Average doesn't 'set an example' does it?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Context is everything. It's pretty clear that these kids were not being exploited in manner that sexualized them per-se (as would obviously be the case of some old perv were in he picture fondling their genitals, for example - or fondling his own). Therefore, this is not ethically a problem. Legally is another thing, but the law's an ass.