Slog - Comments on Sex and Photography http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/10/sex_and_photography 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... Copyright 2008 Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:37:00 -0800 Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:38:36 -0800 http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.34 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Comment by mattymatt 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?

]]> mattymatt http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/10/sex_and_photography#c816554 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/10/sex_and_photography#c816554 Arts Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:47:35 -0800 Comment by mattymatt ...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.

]]> mattymatt http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/10/sex_and_photography#c816567 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/10/sex_and_photography#c816567 Arts Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:55:50 -0800 Comment by jameyb 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.

]]> jameyb http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/10/sex_and_photography#c816626 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/10/sex_and_photography#c816626 Arts Tue, 02 Oct 2007 14:54:28 -0800 Comment by Jen Graves 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.

]]> Jen Graves http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/10/sex_and_photography#c816655 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/10/sex_and_photography#c816655 Arts Tue, 02 Oct 2007 15:15:55 -0800 Comment by mattymatt Here's a question I haven't seem answered elsewhere: who took this picture, and why, and did they pose the girls?

]]> mattymatt http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/10/sex_and_photography#c816828 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/10/sex_and_photography#c816828 Arts Tue, 02 Oct 2007 19:08:08 -0800 Comment by exelizabeth @5... like the post says. Nan Goldin. She took it because she's a photographer.

]]> exelizabeth http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/10/sex_and_photography#c816837 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/10/sex_and_photography#c816837 Arts Tue, 02 Oct 2007 19:36:15 -0800 Comment by mattymatt 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.

]]> mattymatt http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/10/sex_and_photography#c816889 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/10/sex_and_photography#c816889 Arts Tue, 02 Oct 2007 22:05:45 -0800 Comment by Jude Fawley 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?

]]> Jude Fawley http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/10/sex_and_photography#c817032 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/10/sex_and_photography#c817032 Arts Wed, 03 Oct 2007 08:58:56 -0800 Comment by old timer 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.

]]> old timer http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/10/sex_and_photography#c817112 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/10/sex_and_photography#c817112 Arts Wed, 03 Oct 2007 10:14:15 -0800 Comment by -B- 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

]]> -B- http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/10/sex_and_photography#c817170 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/10/sex_and_photography#c817170 Arts Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:05:21 -0800 Comment by Nik Potaper Google is my favorite search engine!

]]> Nik Potaper http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/10/sex_and_photography#c825637 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/10/sex_and_photography#c825637 Arts Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:38:36 -0800