If he didn't have so much money to sue me with I would have thought that it was because he was a paedophile.

But seeing as though he has then he obviously isn't.

Are you Mr. Moderator?

it seems to me he lives his life like a candle in the wind



I feel sick now

He's probably never even seen it. It sounds like the gallery were a bit frightened that if they displayed it, they might get done for porn. So they called the police and said come and have a look. Plod turns up and doesn't know what the ferk to do, 'cos there's no motorist involved, so he takes it away and says 'we'll let you know.'

Enter the journo's making a fookin' mountain out of a molehill..............

It is described as a young girl with her legs open. Doesn't say whether she's clothed or what. My guess is, she is. Otherwise no story.

Unless anyone has actually seen the picture it seems fruitless to me to make any comment...

Is he the new Queen Mother..?

me nanna used to think he was marvellous in all them hats 'n' that.

No, he's just a fat queen

I cant understand why anyone would want a photo of kids in there underwear unless its there own kids, i find this very disturbing.

Have you seen the photo? A straight yes or no will do.
For the record I haven't.

No-one has yet apart from the photographer, the gallery and the filth.

If it's in the 'Baltic' it will be beyond the understanding and perception of mere mortals and it's 'brilliance' will only be understood by the experts....... and those who think they know. The Kings New Clothes come to mind ..Utter bollocks of course.

a masterstroke for publicity you could,nt buy it, now all types of weirdo,s will be going along, then the baltic will say visitor figures are upand can we have that lottery money you promised us

The Baltic...

They showed half of it on GMTV yesterday morning and blurred the alleged dodgy bit, like chip said in a previous thread if he'd shown his decorated bus shelter now he'd be a wealthy man.
All down to peoples perception of art i guess not my scene though sorry.

If anyone wants to take a photo of me with with me legs akimbo and all the veg on show I don't mind as long as we share the profits.

Frank, what do you reckon?? Eh??

You've heard of the 'last turkey in the shop,' and 'puppetry of the penis,' I can do 'last tiger in the millhouse' if the lights good.

Is your member black and orange stripes Kev????

It can be whatever you want darling if the moneys right.......

ooooh behave!!!

Wouldn't that come under necrophilia...?

'kin ell.....would hate to think just what THATS come under snowdrop....

OK I've now seen a somewhat small uncensored copy of the picture. It's two very young girls in a kitchen playing at belly dancing, one of whom happens to be naked and the other dressed in what looks like a pair of one-legged jeans, but there's no suggestion of pornography. I can't imagine anyone whacking off to it (though you never know).

I've looked at quite a number of other Nan Goldin photos, cos Reggie Dwight does have a collection of 150 of them. They're not the sort of thing I'd choose personally to decorate my walls but they are pretty inoffensive even if there is a fair smattering of nakedness. They are not just photos of kids but of all kinds of people. I can't honestly believe Reggie deliberately collected a load of her photos just to act as a smokescreen for this particular one.

The original question was "Why would Elton John want to own a Photograph of someone elses 'Naked' kids?"
The answer is simply it's just one photo in a collector's collection.

I don't think there's anything more to read into it; let's move on and concentrate on the real kiddie porn peddlers.

Disclaimer: I do not like Elton John!

also, photography isn't art!!!!!!!

shysters,f ucking shysters

the owner is offensive but i have him down as a raving arse bandit and not a peado myself like and he prob aint seen it.

fartin round like that aint funny

Sorry- twas just a joke

Go on wil you, take what I said out of fookin context. I looked at her *other* photos, dozens of them, and didn't find them offensive. Did you look at her other photos?
As for THAT photo, it isn't posed. I don't believe for a minute the photographer was saying "come on now pet open them a bit wider please". I repeat *I don't personally like the photo* but it's not porn. Anyone who gets off on that will also get off on child models in the underwear section of clothes catalogues.

I like looking at the outsize bra sections. I have to find something to fit me.
Are yers saying I've got nowt like? Are yer starin' at me bras, like?

This is an easy answer: Pictures of naked kids in such poses is wrong. I don't give a shite if you call it art or creativity, its just wrong.

I cannot agree my tympanic chum. One of my favourite places in the world is the National Photography Museum in gay Paris.

I once saw a collection of 40's occupation photo's in there and they kept me for four hours. Spellbinding.

I'm not saying it doesn't have its place, it does...but it isn't 'art'
just my opinion....and the fact that it gets classed as 'art' makes it the oasis of the artworld...ie the lowest form and anyone can do it!


the shyster remark stems from photographers bleeding arts councils dry when theres so much more deserving things that get overlooked...in my opinion

Too bloody true you took it out of context. The full text was "I've looked at quite a number of other Nan Goldin photos, cos Reggie Dwight does have a collection of 150 of them. They're not the sort of thing I'd choose personally to decorate my walls but they are pretty inoffensive even if there is a fair smattering of nakedness."

What part of "other Nan Goldin photos" didn't you understand?

http://images.google.fr/images?q=Nan%20 ... a=N&tab=wi

I just think that old black and whites are very atmospheric and tell their own tale. Much better than old oil daubs of people you've never heard of who all look the same. Or opera, or ballet, which aren't accessible to most people.

I would agree that the British Arts Council are a joke like, but now all the money is going to London for the Olympics the whole things going to hell in a handcart anyway.

Mutt it's out of context because we're simply not talking about the same thing.
I've already said I don't like THAT photo but it's the other 200 other Nan Goldin photos I've looked at that I'm calling not offensive.
Sorry if you think I'm out to nark you; I assure you I'm not; I love you to bits! but when I say something about one thing and you reply with comments about another it gets a bit frustrating.

I wasn't talking about the other 200 'art' photos....I was talking about the offensive one....it was you that mentioned all the others!!!!

PS....I've seen some of her other 'art' photos....and if they are 'art'....the amount of photos I've took which are just as good I must be Tony Hart!!!!

ART... If I put a burnt out car on a roundabout I'd be described as a fly tipper... if a famous artist, beloved of the art world, beloved of the rich benefactors and having composed a suitably lyrical load of tosh to describe the said vehicle did it .... it would be a world renowned piece of art with a powerful social message worthy of due respect....but what is the difference, apart from the spin?

Well you ARE a famous artist so what are you waiting for to give it a try?
Or is demand outstripping supply in the burnt-out car market these days?

The supply of beige Morris Marinas has just about dried up...
It does get my temperature up a tad ... when so called artists disguise their own complete lack of talent by using bullshit to weave a story over the most banal tosh... i.e the famous blue canvas.

I'm not overly fond of those old stlye paintings either, but I do think they have more merit than any photograph though.

I haven't got a problem with photo's, just when they are passed off as art it gets my goat.

I think I'm in a position to talk about this as I have painted to a reasonable level in the past!