Klara and Edda Belly-Dancing - Articles - Zimbio

Nick

Tue, 31 Oct 2007 11:44:06 GMT

posted by artmarketblog

When Pornography is Pornography and Not Fine Art

Most of you will be aware of the controversy surrounding the Nan Goldin photograph ‘Klara and Edda Belly-Dancing’ which is owned by Elton John and was recently removed from an exhibition by police after complaints were made regarding the sexual nature of the photograph which features two young girls one of whom is sitting down with her legs wide apart. After much deliberation Britain’s Crown Prosecution decided that the photograph was not indecent and that there would be no charges which seems to be a result of an investigation into the same photo in 2001 by the CPS which also found the photograph to be not indecent. I find it rather unbelievable that this particular photo could be considered not indecent considering that the definition of indecency is to “offend against generally accepted standards of propriety (conformity to established standards of good or proper behavior or manners) or good taste” which is exactly what this photo does.

Regardless of whether it was produced for the purposes of fine art or not, the reason that images containing naked pictures of children are illegal remains the same regardless of the context of the image. The fact is that just because the photo was produced as fine art doesn’t mean that it won’t be used for more sinister purposes and as such it should not be made available to the general public. I am well aware that Nan Goldin had a rather traumatic childhood but that doesn’t automatically give her the right to put other children in potentially compromising and dangerous situations. The children in the photo would not have any awareness of their inclusion in the photo or understanding of the associated issues and controversy and are therefore not able to determine whether or not they wanted to be in the photo. Because the children are not able to make a rational and informed decision regarding their inclusion in a photo that the artist had to have known would be controversial, this image should never have been made accessible to the public

I am all for artistic freedom but there has to be a point where common sense and morality come into play. Nan Goldin’s photographs benefit nobody else other than herself so if she was really producing this work for the purposes of self improvement and self expression then she would not be selling the photographs or using the controversy to further her career.

The controversy and associated media attention may have increased the value Nan Goldin’s work but at what price. At the end of the day the focus should really be on the moral and ethical issues not the artistic and legal aspects.

**Nicholas Forrest is an art market analyst, art critic and journalist based in Sydney, Australia. He is the founder of artmarketblog.com, writes the art column for the magazine Antiques and Collectibles for Pleasure and Profit and contributes to many other publications.

Klara And Edda Belly-Dancing Not Indecent

Thu, 26 Oct 2007 15:23:00 GMT

posted by moneyseeker
Looks like the police got it wrong regarding the photograph owned by Elton John and titled, 'Klara and Edda Belly-Dancing'. We wrote first about this on September 26th here.

Police seized the photo, by U.S photographer Nan Goldin, after it was put on display at the Baltic gallery in Gateshead last month. The Northumbria Crime Prosecution Service have now decided that there is insufficient evidence to justify any proceedings. They deemed the photograph not to be indecent.

The 'Klara and Edda Belly-Dancing' photo had previously been investigated in 2001.

The CPS spokesperson, Kerrie Bell said, "In order to prove that the photograph is indecent we must be satisfied that contemporary standards of propriety are so different now to what they were in 2001, that it is more likely than not that a court will conclude that the photograph is indecent. I am not satisfied that is the case."

"Even if the photograph was now considered to be indecent, a defendant would be able to raise a legitimate defence, given that the photograph was distributed for the purposes of display in a contemporary art gallery after having been deemed not to be indecent by the earlier investigation."

Subscribe to Celebrity Insider - Photos & News
Subscribe to Celebrity Insider - Photos & News by Email

Murphy redux, and pervy

Wed, 4 Oct 2007 10:02:00 GMT

posted by edweirdo
Sadly, Murphy's Law did not end well. To cut a long and pretty silly story short, having found his missing colleague tied up in a rusting hulk in the harbour, the silliness began. First, a shootout on the fo'c'sle, leaving the only witness who could tie the crimes to Baker dead, whereupon the inevitable attempt to nail Baker goes, in the parlance, tits up (cue failure of nerve on the part of the CPS), and the perp walks. Naturally our plucky but deeply damaged heroine bumps him off, then takes the Chief Constable hostage and shoots him in the knee, before turning the gun on herself. The last we see is Murphy in his knackered Volvo, putting a gun to his head, lowering it, putting it up again before realising that if he pulls the trigger, there will be no more programmes. The whole sorry mess is here. By the by, a correspondent wondered why I hadn't mentioned Nesbitt's part in Jekyll in the previous blog. The answer's simple - I didn't watch it.

Since we're on the subject of a sorry mess, I must refer to the story of Elton John's porno. The story of the picture by Nan Goldin entitled Klara and Edda Belly-Dancing being removed from an exhibition on grounds of public decency has been widely debated and doesn't look like dying down anytime soon. On the one hand we have the forces of public decency, who object to the potential for this picture to contribute to the sexualisation of children (it shows a young girl on her back with her legs splayed, showing her primary sexual characteristics). On the other hand are the art mob, who object to any kind of censorship, on the grounds that this diminishes their freedom to produce the work they want to produce.

What seems to exercise no-one except Rotwatcher is the nature of the photograph itself. It's completely crap. Rubbish. Poorly lit, badly composed. Totally, abjectly, banal. Now there's nothing wrong with banality in art - but as a subject, not as a description. If you're going to take a really bad photograph, it needs to be a pretty startling subject.

Unfortunately, the only startling thing about this subject is that the young girl on the floor is ... ahem ... showing. Of course, that's what young children are like. They have practically zero sense of modesty, which is as it should be. The Young Rots were forever casting off their clouts, and even today like nothing more than running around with their willies hanging out. You'll be relieved to know that they're only 11 and 8. Sometimes their cavortings result in unfortunate tableaux, but I'd no more photograph them like that than I would Mrs Rot in her cot, or my best friend picking his nose. That Nan Goldin saw fit to press the shutter, and that Elton saw fit to pay for this crap, only reflects badly on them, both as artist and customer as well as arbiters of taste and decency. And you know the worst thing? I come across sounding like Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells.

In short it's a badly-made photograph of a little girl showing her bits. In a well-adjusted society it would be ignored on the grounds of aesthetics - it's crap, so why look at it? In a really well-adjusted society, pictures of naked humans of any age would be perfectly acceptable. But in our society, where crap art and crap artists are lauded to the skies by people too scared to be thought of as Philistines, and where every single man over thirty with a brown cardigan and a combover is probably a paedo, then rubbish like this is only petrol on a bonfire.

Klara and Edda Belly-Dancing deemed child pornography

Wed, 27 Sep 2007 01:36:58 GMT

posted by The_Zimbio_Team
Authorities took control of the Nan Goldin photo "Klara and Edda Belly-Dancing" on grounds that it is in violation of child pornography laws. Given Goldin's photography collection and history as an artistic photographer, these charges seem misplaced.

Welcome to our wikizine called "Klara and Edda Belly-Dancing"

Wed, 27 Sep 2007 01:36:26 GMT

posted by The_Zimbio_Team
Wikizines are interactive magazines that anyone can create or edit - and this one is called "Klara and Edda Belly-Dancing". Here you can find fresh voices and respond in real time. Some members write articles about recent news and trends related to the wikizine's topic, others recount relevant personal stories or share their favorite pictures and video clips. Got an interesting idea or story to share with other members of this wikizine? Well, then put on your journalist's cap and add your own article!