Regarding this photograph (NWS I would have thought)
Nan Goldin's has defended her work with the statement: She always says that the difference between her work and pornography is that she is capturing what’s in front of her. Reality can be raw and uncomfortable. Children do do things like this as anyone with a couple of little girls has seen. It’s in the eye of the viewer whether it’s pornographic.”
Just because something happens naturally and without sinister intent, should it be photographed?
Any views?
More info can be found here
Edited Thu 27 Sep 2007 at 6:16pm
^top
The problem - a picture that is essentially printed by fine art means (this ain't no snappy snaps special) to a market audience who are willing to pay £10k plus for the one piece
Special selling option - this controversial piece is part of a sequence of photos
Even if this was a private family snap I seriously doubt it would remain in the main family album
The argument is about a woman photographer who takes photos for the fine art audience about feminity etc that would be grossly misconstrued in a public gallery
Personal opinion, its a dodgy pic,
^top
I don't believe that the photo should be classed as either! It ain't in anyway that I can fathom Art and neither porn. In my opinion this is a family snapshot of 2 kids growing up. At thats exactly where the photo should stay, with the family. So why shouldn't it be photographed its a fun moment of family life.
Unfortunately I am sure that there are some sick b*stards that could somehow construe this as being sexually stimulating and these are the pedos that would get off even by looking at fully clothed children in the playpark.
^top
I'm not sure why anyone other than the family would want a picture like that
^top
