Gallery exhibit not child porn, says CPS

  1. Haroon Siddique and agencies
    Friday October 26, 2007
    Guardian Unlimited

    A photograph owned by Sir Elton John and seized from an exhibition as part of a child pornography inquiry has been judged not to be indecent, the Crown Prosecution Service said today.
    The image, by the US photographer Nan Goldin, is entitled Klara and Edda Belly-Dancing 1998 and features two young girls, one of whom was sitting down with her legs wide apart. Northumbria police removed it from the Baltic Modern Art gallery last month, the day before it was due to go on display to the public.

    Kerrie Bell, the head of the CPS Northumbria south unit, said: "The evidence is insufficient to justify proceedings for offences of possession or distribution of an indecent photograph."

    The CPS first considered the image in 2001, when it was deemed not to be an indecent image.
    Ms Bell said she was not satisfied that "contemporary standards of propriety are so different now to what they were in 2001".
    She said the exhibition organisers would be able to raise a "legitimate defence" that the photograph had been distributed for the purposes of display in an art gallery after having been deemed not to be indecent by the earlier investigation.
    The photograph has been exhibited all over the world and was offered for sale at Sotheby's New York in 2002 and 2004.
    Northumbria police said they had been alerted to the photograph by management at the gallery. The image was one of 148 to have formed part of an exhibition by 54-year-old Goldin, who has documented the gay, transvestite and post-punk subculture of cities in her homeland.

    (http://arts.guardian.co.uk/art/news/story/0,,2199948,00.html)

    Obviously, I'm not going to post the photo. I don't even feel comfortable posting a link to it.

    I don't think it's child porn, but I do understand how some people would feel uncomfortable looking at it.

    It just goes to show you have to be really careful when dealing with photographs of children.
     
  2. I googled the photo.... OMG

    Its not porn but its not tasteful. Who would want a photo of that on their wall??????? I wouldn't even want it in the family album!!
     
  3. It's just plain nasty.
     
  4. That is awful. I have a daughter about that age and I can tell you as a mother: THAT IS NOT ART:mad::rant:
     
  5. Well, I had to see the picture because I could form an opinion...

    Firstly, it's an ugly photo. It's not even artsy, it honestly looks like some Mo off the street took it, this person is a professional photographer? and lastly... well, there is a naked child, legs spread in it, and WHO the hell wants to look at that?!! so i can definitely see everyone's problem with it.
     
  6. I don't see how anyone can look at this and think it is porn. The little girl that is standing in the photo, you can also see a nipple. Sometimes children play naked.

    Someone on another forum posted this about the photo. I feel the same way.

     
  7. yikes! picture is a little sketchy, I dont even think walgreens would print that. child porn ...NO. strange...YES. Art is what you percieve it to be what one thinks is disturbing another might lust over why put them in any unnessacary spotlight. She's really gonna love that picture when she's 15. thanks mom and dad!! I see plenty of shrink bills in her future:woohoo:
     
  8. The photo made me smile and remember my childhood in the tropics when I was so young that wearing clothes was optional.
    *sigh*
    Unfortunately, adults have sexualized children to such an extent that the image of a naked child playing causes discomfort.
     
  9. Part of me thinks people are overreacting.

    Then again, on the other side of the coin, it's better for CPS to overreact than underreact, right?
     
  10. ^^ Absolutely!!!
     

  11. I agree 100%... the morgues are full of children who's guardians/teachers/CPS under-reacted.
     
  12. Can't understand why anyone would want to take a photo of this anyhow. Ok if it was your own kids and you were just snapping away, but even then I don't think I would print it and display it for all to see.
     
  13. IMO, it doesn't look like a very professional photo. It looks like something someone took using a disposable camera.

    While I wouldn't classify it as child porn, I don't think it's very.. appropriate.
     
  14. If you do a google search on Nan Goldin, you can see that she has done other controversial works. Some of her works makes you dizzy, such as this one http://forum.purseblog.com/up-to-the-minute/gallery-exhibit-not-child-porn-says-cps-206805.html
    (scroll down please), but art is like that, sometimes we cannot understand it.

    Back to the Klara-Edda photo, you can see that the photo is done in a candid way of 2 kids playing in their kitchen. It's like a sister playing with her lil sibling. It is up to us how to perceive it. Don't think about sex or other nasty sexual-pedophile things when you look into that photo and you can see it's just a photo of 2 innocent lil kids playing in the kitchen.
     
  15. Ok short and simple, after seeing the picture, I don't understand how it COULD be art? The parents/family of those kids may find it precious and keep it but not anyone else? I don't get it..nothing cute here?