Naked fear on display

Mission Accomplished: Self Censorship Complete.

...of course these are always losing battles when the art itself just isn't that good. But hello?? Remember Sally Man? She had her children taken away for taking pictures of them without clothes on....and that was art.

It's all about context. But even context itself is subjective.
Being familiar with Goldin's other work, she is no stranger to capturing disquieting images. With this knowledge alone, I would discredit the 'kiddie porn’ claim. Art is often made to hit nerves. As long as the children were not photographed performing sex acts, I doubt any harm was done to them. How many of us have been photographed nude, taken by family when we were babies/children?

But once again, even the most innocent of images can be taken out of context.

A diaper ad featuring a happy, nude baby informs potential customers that the product is superb. A normal person will make this correlation. A pedophile will see it as a sexy pin-up. Disturbing, yes. So does the diaper ad fall into the category of porn? Certainly not. The same holds true for Goldin's piece. At face value, it's just two children in the nude. It's the potential of what it could mean to certain, sick individuals that has society troubled.

Don't think I have a definitive opinion about this at this point... I do find it responsible of the gallery to have consulted with the police, although they lose some respect points for consulting with them *after* they had already exhibited the piece...

This quote from the piece sums up my opinion: "Is it art? I don’t know. Could a paedophile be excited by it? Definitely. But then such people can be excited by looking through a Mothercare catalogue."

My pod on pedophilia is certainly relevant: http://current.com/items/85088451_better_the_devil_you_know

Viva la vida!
http://current.com/items/85088451_better_the_devil_you_know

Art is art. No matter the content. I think that people are so socially blinded and sheltered by these small groups that we section ourselves off in that anything outside them will shock them into disbelief, disgust, and outright disagreement.
It's funny how something like this would be considered "child porn." I understand that it is the public eye but it was created by an artist to express an idea, especially an artist who is known for images like this.

I haven't seen the picture in question, but I find it incredibly disturbing ...that some people equate nudity ("Having no clothing; naked") with pornography ("Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal").

The nude form is natural, and beautiful, regardless of the subject. Whether or not it's "artistic" is up to the beholder, but whether or not it's "pornographic" is dependent upon the message the artist/photographer is trying to convey.

I am sure the same thing would happen here in an American gallery. It's kids having fun and playing at home. Yes, there are sick people out there and unfortunately they are not going to disappear, but it is sad that these sick f*&ks make childhood innocence perverse.
A couple weeks ago I was at the beach and this little boy (2 or 3-ish) dropped his drawers and just ran, laughing hysterically, down the boardwalk. It was innocence at its purist form and from what I saw of other people, no one looked offended. In fact, I think everyone got a good laugh!

art is subjective. If this picture was taken by a pedophile it can be considered child pornography. if it was taken as a means of expression by a photographer that is a different story.
everyone just looks at the picture and says that's it. it's not. art is so much more about the who, what, when, where and why then the actual finished product.