Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Klara and Edda Belly Dancing
Elton John collects photographic art and has lent an entire monograph of US Photographer Nan Goldin's "Thanksgiving" to an art gallery in Newcastle, England.

The entire monograph was pulled out of the gallery after British police confiscated a numbered print of "Klara and Edda Belly Dancing." Elton says that removing this piece removes from the entire art collection so he pulled it ALL out of there.

I adore Elton John as a performer and as a person. His charities has helped thousands who suffer from HIV/AIDS and he brings awareness and attention to this tragic cause, among other matters. However, I must digress and say that this photograph is NOT art.


I wouldn't say that it is pornography either, but simply two girls whether they be sisters or friends, playing in the privacy of their home. It is innocent, they're playing and having fun without having any fear or notion that they are being exploited. Nor that this photograph would travel all around the world uncensored.

It is a terrible photograph when it comes to lighting, contrast and color. I'm sure this photograph was chosen out of a bunch of photos taken that evening just because of the shock value hiding behind that yellow circle. The fact that there are perverted pedophiles out there doesn't help any either.

No, this photo or rather this moment does NOT belong in an art gallery or book. This moment should be private, between two innocent sisters/friends and there shouldn't had been a camera around in the first place. Not that there is anything wrong with nudity, especially in it's most innocent form. The Renaissance is full of nude art - and this isn't even close to being art.

I'm glad the British police pulled this photo and I'm glad Elton John pulled the entire collection out of there. Nan Goldin's work would make even Larry Flint blush and shudder by it's context. I wonder how she would feel if a picture of her cooch was all over the internet.

I'd loose my lunch.
Stumble It! .......posted by Margaret @ 4:32 PM  
18 Comments:
  • At 7:27 PM, Blogger - PRACTiCAL CHiCK said…

    That is child porn. Sorry, but it is.

     
  • At 8:41 PM, Blogger Margaret said…

    No need to be sorry PC.

    My thoughts are that this was an innocent moment exploited by a Pornographer Photographer who skirted on the edge of her rights and the rights of these children to make and sell copies of prints or books with this photo in it.

    They are not of consenting age and just like what happened to that Girls Gone Wild Producer - I hope they grow up and sue her pants off and slam her in jail.

     
  • At 8:56 AM, Blogger Georgia Peach said…

    Miz Margie, all I can say is I am damn glad that photo is not of my grandbaby girls. Their would be a person walking around, maybe, with a croc up their butt. I do not mean the shoe. That photo is totally disgusting. It would have been bad enough, if it had been adults. As it is shown, it is porn, pure and simple. The photog is not an artist but a peeking Harriet and a sick one at that. I want to know where the hell these girls parents were and how did that woman get this photo? Could this person be a relative of the girls? Sicko freak is my guess. Elton John has his good moments and this is not one of them. Thanks for bringing this art project to the light for us!

    Hugs, GA Peach

     
  • At 11:32 AM, Blogger Dr.John said…

    If it isn't porn it is right on the edge. We have no way of knowing the intent of the person who took the picture but we can see what it has been turned into. Pull the whole collection I say.

     
  • At 3:45 PM, Blogger Flyinfox_SATX said…

    I some times wonder why we do what we do in the name of Art! I am grateful as well.

    Flyinfox_SATX

     
  • At 5:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Its not porn you dumb fucks. The only reason why you think its porn is because you, yourself, become arroused when looking at it

     
  • At 6:06 PM, Blogger Margaret said…

    It's not art either, Anonymous.

    I'm female, and not aroused by female genitalia nor male either, for that matter. I do not view nudity as sexual unless the art is depicting the sexual act.

    This photo is not sexual, and oddly innocent to many. The offense is of the artist herself - who printed these shots and put them out there for the world to see.

    As if to say, "What if?"

     
  • At 3:01 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I have children, and in my opinion it is wrong to have, or let be made pictures of this nature. I am in no way a pervert, I just think if those were my kids I would be damn mad. It can not be innocent in my opinion, these are CHILDREN!!!! Not adults, and even covered with a spot just doesn't seem to make it any more innocent in my opinion. The person who took the photo should be charged.
    As far as the comment about people who think this is child porn being dumb fucks. Would you let YOUR childs picture, showing them nude be put on display? If so, I hope you have no kids!

     
  • At 10:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The person who took this photo should be charged?? Are you serious?? I have plenty of "nude" photos of my children growing up, should I be charged also??

    It can not be innocent in your opinion?? WHY can it not be innocent?

    I am so sick and tired of retarded people in this world.

     
  • At 8:15 AM, Blogger Margaret said…

    Maybe I should remove the yellow spot?

    Trust me, it's not as simple as seeing this private part as if it were that of a doll baby.

    Unfortunately, this child's position is spread eagle and exposing her vagina and all that is inside her labia in a shocking manner.

    I have nude photos of my daughter also, tastefully done but none the less - in a family photo album not on this blog nor hanging on a art museum's wall.

    I'm sure this photographer had other photos of these girls playing this night. All which would have displayed the innocence of these children care free and playing.

    Photos that would have had a better lighting, not as much grain in the background and better put forth as art.

    But no, this retarded nutter of a photographer had to pick this one out of the bunch. It's obvious that she did so because of the shock value of the gaping vagina hiding underneath that circle.

    In order to gain fame, controversy and notoriety as an artist.

    The other photos included with this grouping and in the book are photos of prostitutes, orgies, S&M and a variety of sex fetishes. This photo being included in this package deal says to me that the artist intended it to be viewed in a sexual manner along with the other photos in the group.

    Alone, maybe it wouldn't be so bad.

     
  • At 1:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    ive masterbated to that pic about 7 times since its been posted here... hot!

     
  • At 3:05 PM, Anonymous GoodParentGoodPerson said…

    Though I understand all the concerns, what worries me is that we live in a world where there are concerns. Children have played, and done so without clothing, since the beginning of time. All events that occur around us or that we are involved in can be encapsulated as art. Art is a reflection of life, frozen for a moment to shared and contemplated. Judging the intent of the creation of art is impossible and not relevant. And judging the observation along with thoughts and feelings that go with it is no more so. Someone who would experience thoughts and feelings that you would not want to exist when looking at this photo, will do so in many situations that you would never consider regulating. And frankly any of you would be lucky to figure out 1% of what other people are thinking and feeling. It is a pointless attempt. Actions maybe, sometimes, but not thoughts. If we hoist a work of art, and this is a work of art, and censor it, or judge it as bad, we are making that statement about the life that was reflected, not the thoughts or feels of others. Chances are they already know how you feel about there thoughts and feelings, and a) don’t care, b) don’t tell you c) could be anybody, even you…

    Anonymous... your words are stupid, how's that for a judgemnet?

     
  • At 10:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     
  • At 11:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Anonymous, you are a perverted prick. Hope someone catches you and you go to jail.

     
  • At 2:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    It's not art (for the reasons mentioned - any random person could have taken a photo like that) but it's ridiculous to say it's porn.

    If the naked girl had been deliberately posed with her legs spread displaying her vulva like that, then it would probably count as child porn.

    But it's simply two kids playing and their positions just happened to be like that. And courts have found that it is not child porn.

     
  • At 3:10 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Better hide those family photos before those 'pedo' authorities confiscate them. I've heard of many confiscations of such paraphenalia however I've never heard of these authorities destroying any of it. What is this material doing in their custody ...sitting around in boxes so they can peruse them later??? Secondly a photograph of 2 nude female children in the hands of a 'known' homosexual hardly renders them pornographic. I think if a homosexual can be thought of as being 'aroused' by such photographic images then he's not really a homosexual!?! Is he? Food for thought!

     
  • At 3:18 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Better hide those family photos before those 'pedo' authorities confiscate them. I've heard of many confiscations of such paraphenalia however I've never heard of these authorities destroying any of it. What is this material doing in their custody ...sitting around in boxes so they can peruse them later??? Secondly a photograph of 2 nude female children in the hands of a 'known' homosexual hardly renders them pornographic. I think if a homosexual can be thought of as being 'aroused' by such photographic images then he's not really a homosexual!?! Is he? Food for thought!

     
  • At 1:04 PM, Blogger Margaret said…

    By itself, I wouldn't render the photo pornographic. However the artist included this photo in the gallery and in her book alongside of other photos that do depict sexuality. (Prostitutes, Orgy, S&M, etc.)

    Although I adore Elton John as an artist and performer, I do question his motives for even owning this collection. Perhaps because it includes an array of photos that are considered in many circles socially taboo. Although more accepted today, homosexuality was also viewed in this limelight. Perhaps this may be his connection with the grouping.

    However, just having this photo in this grouping suggests to me that it is meant to portray pedophilia as a taboo sexuality. That is where I take offense.

    When willing adults participate in various sexual acts, it doesn't matter to me if they suck eachother's toes, spank, hot wax themselves, dress as furries, swing or whatever turns them on. To each their own.

    But I do find pedophilia creates victims. As does rape. Including children in this collection was just too overbearing and in my opinion wrong.

     
Post a Comment
<< Home
 
 

About Me

Previous Issues

Archives

Having Issues?

Do you have issues?
If so, click here and
tell us about it!

Awards/Webrings

Bloggy Buds

Subscribe

Weblog Visitors

Affiliates



Lillian Vernon Online

TigerDirect

Template Doctored by:
Coastal Data Enterprises