.

 

The image, which featured two young girls one of whom was sitting down with her legs wide apart, was taken by the renowned photographer Nan Goldin.

 

Nan Goldin's 'Mel in bed with Valerie and Bruno laughing'

Goldin's art, such as this 2001 photo, often features young girls...

 

The shot, from the artist's Thanksgiving series, was to be exhibited at the Baltic Modern Art gallery, Tyneside, this week along with some of her other work. But the day before it was due to be viewed by the public, police came and removed the image over fears that it might be breaking the law.

 

It is thought that one of the assistant directors at the centre called in the authorities last Thursday after a private view as he was concerned that the picture could be offensive.

 

The picture is now being examined by lawyers at the Crown Prosecution Service.

 

Officials at the gallery confirmed that the police were involved but refused to say who had decided the picture should be removed.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../nbaltic125.xml

 

 

I thought this was just another media hype up until I saw the photograph on another forum ( the girls private bits were blanked out. It was only meant to give

an idea of what the photo and fuss is about. )

 

There is no way this is a photo of innocent girls at play.

The fact that it was taken by a female doesn't mean she isn't a pedophile and this isn't kiddie porn.

 

Nan Goldins background is mentioned on the link, and it seems she's a bit of sicko in my opinion who has a unnatural obsession with pre-pubescent girls.

 

Up until now it's been classed as art (which it isn't in my view, it's porn) and I really feel it needs to be reclassified as it was taken over 20 years ago now.

 

What do you think?

 

BTW the pic in the story isn't the one that the fuss is about. If the Telegraph published it in the article they would have the police knocking at their door.

The pic is one of the more tamer ones from her collection.

Edited September 28, 200717 yr by Naomi Watts

This is another example of the hysteria around today about paedophilia.

 

I can't help thinking that that photo of the naked baby on Nirvanas nevermind album would be considered paedophilia today.

 

After all an image of a naked child is considered an obscene photo by the British courts

Edited September 28, 200717 yr by kindagood

I can't help thinking that that photo of the naked baby on Nirvanas nevermind album would be considered paedophilia today.

 

That is a very, very good point actually, and it totally illustrates the danger that we are in where we may end up totally throwing the baby out with the bathwater (if you'll pardon the expression...). Kurt Cobain himself explains the cover as being about the child representing innocence being lured by corruption as represented by the dollar bill (it could, in a way, be seen as a metaphor for Kurt himself in many ways actually..). Certainly NOT Pornography, but you'll likely get some stupid r*t**** who'll try to argue that it is....

 

At the end of the day, it's all about context and actual intent... Are we likely to see Nan Golding's work on some kiddie porn or p**** site...? I very, very much doubt that... Has she intended her work to be for sickos to get their rocks off...? Again, I seriously doubt it....

 

hmmm.... the problem is, with or without intent, perverts WILL get their rocks off at anything. are kids going to be dressed in sacks or islamic dress to hide their bodies? but what is the difference between 'art' and pornography? probably in the beholders mind!

hmmm.... the problem is, with or without intent, perverts WILL get their rocks off at anything. are kids going to be dressed in sacks or islamic dress to hide their bodies? but what is the difference between 'art' and pornography? probably in the beholders mind!

 

Mate, paedos get turned on by young girls in school uniforms, and I've lost count of the amount of "over-age" glamour models we see dressed up as schoolgirls to titilate the "Maxim/FHM" male, yet there's no plans to ban school uniforms is there...? If we are to ban Nan Golding's shots, then I reckon we have to stop the whole "sexualisation" of schoolgirls as evidenced in stuff like "St Trinians" and these "glamour" shots of models dressed up in school uniform in mags like FHM.... How far are we gonna take it is the question....