Latest

Lobby

Search

Options

Help

Login

"Klara And Edda Belly-Dancing"

Printer-friendly format

Email this thread to a friend

Bookmark this thread

This topic is archived.

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)

Flabbergasted

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-26-07 05:33 PM
Original message

"Klara And Edda Belly-Dancing"

Edited on Fri Oct-26-07 06:32 PM by Flabbergasted

Seized Elton photo judged not indecent
Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:22am EDT

(Reuters) - A photograph owned by Elton John which was seized by police at a gallery as part of a child pornography probe is not an indecent image, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said on Friday.

The photo, entitled "Klara And Edda Belly-Dancing", had been removed from an exhibition at the Baltic gallery in Gateshead last month after management had sought advice before it was put on public display.

The photograph is of two young girls, one of whom has her legs apart.

Northumbria CPS said it had told police there was insufficient evidence to justify proceedings for possession or distribution of an indecent photograph.

It said it had investigated the picture by U.S. photographer Nan Goldin in 2001 when it was part of another exhibition at the Saatchi gallery in London and had decided then that it was not indecent.

more at: http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSL2611827020071026

Out of curiosity I took a peek at the picture and I'm really not impressed. The picture has heavy sexual overtones and is a bad precedent. If this is considered acceptable then what isn't.

For the record. Yes I have a wonderful seven year old daughter.

:hide:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Fridays Child

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-26-07 05:47 PM
Response to Original message

1. Is a photo that would certainly arouse pedophiles necessarily pornographic?

If it is, then should all child behavior which is similar to the scene captured in that photo be labeled pornographic and responded to accordingly?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Flabbergasted

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-26-07 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #1

4. Most parents don't allow their kids to be naked in public.

Why should this lady be putting pictures of her naked kids out into public?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Fridays Child

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-26-07 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #4

10. The photo has been publicized but the backdrop appears to be a private home.

If two little girls exhibited behavior similar to the scene in that photo, would you consider their actions to be pornographic?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Flabbergasted

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-26-07 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #10

14. They are not pornographic. I never said they were. The photograph

Edited on Fri Oct-26-07 06:09 PM by Flabbergasted

has sexual overtones and involves children. I believe the author had this in mind in order to garner attention but knew she could hide behind the "art" shield. I say no. I'm not saying it's illegal just not appropriate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Fridays Child

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-26-07 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #14

23. I didn't imply that you said that. Since you posted this topic, I'm asking what you think.

Is it inappropriate because it was publicized? Is it inappropriate because it was photographed? Or is the children's behavior just inherently inappropriate?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Flabbergasted

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-26-07 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #23

24. Yes. No. No. in order

Edited on Fri Oct-26-07 06:42 PM by Flabbergasted

Our society constantly stretches the social norm. Which is fine. But I think we need to be very skeptical when it involves children.

Thanks for wondering what I think. I'm just responding.

I also like to hear what you think.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Fridays Child

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-26-07 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #24

27. You and I agree, then. Children deserve every single protection we can provide--and then some.

Edited on Fri Oct-26-07 06:48 PM by Fridays Child

The "artist" in this case has exploited her children by publicizing a photo that she knew, or should have known, would be viewed, by some, as sexually provocative. The photo reveals absolutely nothing bad about the children but her action speaks sleazy volumes about her.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Bigmack

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-26-07 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #1

8. Pedos get off on the kids underwear...

section of the Sears Catalog. (Or do they still have that?)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Flabbergasted

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-26-07 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #8

9. We don't need pictures of kids in underwear in public. Period.

Edited on Fri Oct-26-07 06:00 PM by Flabbergasted

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

hlthe2b

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-26-07 05:48 PM
Response to Original message

2. I really don't know where to draw the line on this...

On the one hand, I think we are bringing some of our problems on ourselves by being so sexually repressed as a people. There was a story not long ago of a photo technician turning in parents for child porn, because they had a pic of their baby nude in the bathtub. Now, how many of us have baby pics in the nude, on a rug, or whatever. This is NOT sexual, except for those who have a "need" to make it so.

I saw this photo briefly and I guess it depends... If I found out it was staged, the answer would be far more clear to me. But, I know little girls play quite innocently, both clothed and in the nude up until a certain age. I certainly don't want to see this innocence sexualized. I guess I'm glad I did not have to make the call on this one...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Flabbergasted

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-26-07 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #2

6. Keep it at home. It's plain to me. nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Vincardog

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-26-07 05:49 PM
Response to Original message

3. Beauty is in they eye of the beholder. What is wrong with SEXUALITY?

Where would we be without it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Flabbergasted

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-26-07 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #3

5. A child's sexuality should stay at home. nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

hlthe2b

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-26-07 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #5

15. certainly that's how I'd feel about my own child...

I guess the question is, if unstaged, if there is any artistic quality in this represented--its depiction of innocent play in two young girls? As I said earlier, I really can't answer that. Then, again, there is a lot of "art" that I can't appreciate. :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Flabbergasted

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-26-07 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #15

25. If I were to post that picture online I'd probably get reported...

but since it's in a gallery it's cool. It's not even a good piece.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DCKit

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-26-07 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #3

19. So is perversity.

Funny how many of the morally outraged see everything as pornography then get busted for their own deviant acts.

It's the witch trials and inquisition all over again with the "morally superior" doing as they please while condemning everyone else. It's all about power.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Mz Pip

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-26-07 05:53 PM
Response to Original message

7. It it art?

I posted this in the Photography Forum. This bothers me on a couple of different levels. I took pics of my kids when they were little playing in the bathtub. I didn't offer those pictures for public display and more importantly I think my kids would be mortified if I did. This looks like a family snapshot that should just stay within the family. If the girl wants to sell it after she turns 18, then that's another issue.

Mz Pip
:dem:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Fridays Child

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-26-07 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #7

11. Common sense. I agree.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

hlthe2b

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-26-07 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #7

12. oooh..

re: "If the girl wants to sell it after she turns 18, then that's another issue." For some unexplicable reason, that thought creeps me out even more...:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Mz Pip

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-26-07 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #12

17. Yeah, it is

but the point is, she would be in charge of whether or not it goes public. How old are these kids? 8 maybe?

All I know is if I tried to sell or posted on the internet any of those cute little guys in the bathtub nekkid pictures now, there would be hell to pay. Seriously.

Mz Pip
:dem:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

spanone

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-26-07 06:06 PM
Response to Original message

13. great, the art police

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Flabbergasted

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-26-07 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #13

22. Child Protection Service? nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

jaysunb

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-26-07 06:11 PM
Response to Original message

16. I didn't see anything sexual at all...

just a couple kids playing and one happens to be nude.

They're children. Children often play naked--usually when they're supposed to be getting dressed or undressed.

Of course, I can see where some pervert would probaly get off, but, they (pervs) also can spend lots of time at the beach , playgrounds and other places one might see scantily clad kids,where the danger of contact is actually possible.But this is just a picture, and it doesn't strike ME as art...it's more like something you might see in a family album.

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

hlthe2b

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-26-07 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #16

18. No, it is innocence in childhood..... BUT

and this is where many have concerns, it has the potential to be sexualized by some... :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Mz Pip

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-26-07 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #16

20. Well, I would be bothered

if pics of my kids like this turned up on the internet.

First, they were kids and informed consent would have been a bit beyond them.

Second, parents don's always make the right choices regarding their kids. This kind of brings that home to me.

Mz Pip
:dem:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

jaysunb

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-26-07 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #20

21. I think one could ask about the parents use of discretion.

Like I said, it looks like something from a family album, and that's where I think the matter of parental discretion comes in.

I wouldn't have permitted this to happen w/ nude pics of my own Daughters, but I'm not those folks and I'm not sure of the "blowback" down the road from the kids.

On a personal note, I saw my older daughter and her husband giggling over an old family album where there was a pic of her in her birthday suit. I couldn't hear what they were whispering, but they did disappear for about an hour afterwards...:evilgrin:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

regnaD kciN

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-26-07 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #16

26. I think the pose is the problem...

Edited on Fri Oct-26-07 06:48 PM by regnaD kciN

You really see practically nothing of the nude girl lying on the ground except her spread legs and genitalia pointing directly at the camera. If an adult woman was in that pose, it would be described as a "spread beaver" shot, and would likely be considered pornography rather than erotica (which I think most nude photos really are).

I don't think the photographer's intention in this case was pornographic, but that's not the sort of shot I would release to the general public. As a matter of fact, if I were taking "family snapshots" like that, I would delete that particular image in-camera, and only keep the ones that showed more of the girl than just a "crotch shot."

And, yes, if I were a woman, I'd be horrified to find that anyone had seen a childhood shot of me in that particular pose.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Flabbergasted

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Oct-26-07 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #26

28. Wise. nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Wed May 01st 2024, 07:48 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate

About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC