Arts Sex and Photography
posted by on October 2 at 13:37 PM
The most innocent thing loses its innocence the moment it enters a photograph. Hence the problem of images of childhood—which was the subject of Akio Takamori’s show at the Henry Art Gallery last summer. It also became the subject of a heated Slog debate.
At the time, I wrote about the toughest of the show’s images, Nan Goldin’s Edda and Klara Belly Dancing, Berlin (1998). Last week, Edda and Klara, two girls playing, one with her legs spread, was removed from an exhibition in Britain. Officials are still trying to decide whether it breaks child pornography laws.
In response, today Elton John removed the rest of the show, 149 photographs in total, from the museum.
The photograph has been seen in many, many places, but the police reaction still comes as no surprise to me. (It’s art, by the way, not pornography, unless there’s something seriously wrong with you.) It practically begs someone to cry pornography. Unlike photographs that present terrifying situations at a safe distance, this one turns a perfectly innocent event on its head simply by inserting the gaze of the camera, which is presumed to be an adult, or sexualized, gaze. This gaze is the background for all photography, maybe all art, really, which is not made for children. The funny thing is, this may be one of the few photographs I can think of that is made for children. Unless they’ve already been taught to be ashamed of their bodies, they’d find it funny, or silly, or familiar. We adults, meanwhile, find its innocence blinding. We can’t look at it.
For that reason—not because I want to censor this thing further, but in deference to the genuine difficulty of the image for an adult viewer—I’m going to post the image on the jump. It’s not that it’s NSFW. It’s that it’s not safe for adulthood.
Yes; this entry is very well put, and possibly one of the best things I can recall reading on Slog. Except for the very first sentence, which doesn't seem to be saying anything; and even if you interpreted it more specifically, seems easily refutable. Can't a gaze be innocent?
...Unless by "innocent" you mean "meaningless," in which case, sure, I agree that authorship irrevocably confers text. Subjective text, possibly even easily-overlooked text. But all art means something to someone.
Sorry about the double-post.
Oh please. We've all been taught (especially here in good ol' puritanical America) to feel ashamed when looking at such a photo. Beyond that, is it child porn? Of course not (assuming no children were "hurt" during the photo shoot). Will a few icky perverts get off looking at it? Totally. Should it be censored because of that? Absolutely not. Sometimes art should make you feel uncomfortable, if that is its point.
Wait, I almost forgot... Art is dead. Please disregard.
MM: Yes. As in a sort of blankness (or blank diffuseness at least) before it becomes part of a chain of intentionality. It's funny you bring this up, because I did think twice about using the word in this context ("Sex and Photography"), and in the end maybe it comes off as too much of a double entendre.
Here's a question I haven't seem answered elsewhere: who took this picture, and why, and did they pose the girls?
@5... like the post says. Nan Goldin. She took it because she's a photographer.
That's not much of an answer. What I mean is, how was this work authored, and by whom? Did she photograph this, or find the photo at a Goodwill, or composite multiple images? Did she just happen to catch this happening by accident, or had she seen these girls playing like this regularly, or did she make any suggestions to them, or what? And who else was involved? Who're these kids' parents? Who else was home while this was happening? How'd the girls respond once the flash went off?
The point is, I bet the story of the making of this image is interesting.
Since the Henry exhibit involved Buddhist monks, I was reminded of the following story, which seems relevant:
Muddy Road (From Zen Flesh, Zen Bones, ed. Paul Reps)
Tanzan and Ekido were once traveling together down a muddy road. A heavy rain was still falling.
Coming around a bend, they met a lovely girl in a silk kimono and sash, unable to cross the intersection.
"Come on, girl" said Tanzan at once. Lifting her in his arms, he carried her over the mud.
Ekido did not speak again until that night when they reached a lodging temple. Then he no longer could restrain himself. "We monks don't go near females," he told Tanzan, "especially not young and lovely ones. It is dangerous. Why did you do that?"
"I left the girl there," said Tanzan. "Are you still carrying her?"
Could this be what those Monks at the Henry were saying to the visitors?
The 'innocence' comes in real time, when the children are in a safe space with only loving eyes to watch them.
As soon as the action is frozen on film, it become a commodity.
From commoditiy is's a short trip to marketplace be it via the 'art' store or the 'porn' store.
The picture can be viewed as a touchstone. Some people will see it as pornography based upon their own views. Some will see it as an innocent picture of children playing and describe it as not pornography. Either way it is still art and can be viewed both ways.
To say
"It’s art, by the way, not pornography, unless there’s something seriously wrong with you."
Implies you view art correctly and some don't.
Pornography can be art. This image can be viewed as pornographic by some just like a Mapplethorpe or a Carivaggio. It is not the definition of the image as pornography as much as the definition of the word pornography by different people and cultures.
Letting pornography be art and letting some people say an image is pornographic and also art is a challenge.
Is this Caravaggio image pornography? It is definitely sexually charged and shows legs spread and genitalia.
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/C/caravaggio/caravaggio_amor.jpg.html
Google is my favorite search engine!
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).