Elton John kiddie porn drama: II
p2pnet news | Off Topic:- Elton John, the centre of a nasty kiddie porn controversy, has decided discretion is the better part of valour.
Nan Goldin’s Klara and Edda belly-dancing, a photograph of two girls (right), is one of 149 in the ‘Thanksgiving’ collection owned by John.
It was displayed at the Baltic Centre For Contemporary Art in Newcastle, England, raising a storm of protest and accusations that Klara and Edda is an example of child pornography.
Now the collection has been taken down.
“The exhibition had been due to run until 20 January,” says the BBC, adding:
“A Baltic spokesman said: “Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art, at the request of the Sir Elton John Photography Collection, has closed the exhibition.
After the removal of one image, “it was no longer possible for Baltic to exhibit the collection of works as the artist intended,” the story has the BCCA saying.
We borrowed the clip from a post on the Which Up! blog.
Elton John’s personal site wasn’t carrying a statement.
Last time around, “The photograph exists as part of the installation as a whole and has been widely published and exhibited throughout the world,” he posted, adding:
“It can be found in the monograph of Ms Goldin’s works entitled “The Devil’s Playground” (Phaidon, 2003), has been offered for sale at Sotheby’s New York in 2002 and 2004, and has previously been exhibited in Houston, London, Madrid, New York, Portugal, Warsaw and Zurich without any objections of which we are aware.”
Also See:
BBC – Baltic porn probe photos removed, October 1, 2007
kiddie porn controversy – Elton John photos in kiddie porn probe, September 26, 2007
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:37 am
Sick.
Put the sicko in jail!
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:58 am
This picture is just plain wrong. Hardly “art” at all. Good for taking exhibit down.
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:12 am
I honestly don’t know how people discern art from trash, but I must say, it must be a close line.
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:13 pm
This is not art and it is not porn and anyone who paid money for it thinking it was either is a complete fool
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Art can be anything, so therefore it is art. Sadly, people’s definition (and/or acceptance) of “porn” varies.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:14 pm
” Paulus Says:
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:13 pm
This is not art and it is not porn and anyone who paid money for it thinking it was either is a complete fool”
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:53 pm
What a SICK PERSON! I wish elton john would spend some time in jail for this.
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:58 am
If that is child porn, what should we do about the millions of parents who take photographs of their naked children on the beach, in the bath, etc… ?
I didn’t think there were so many intolerant puritanist assholes visiting this site.
October 26th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
The photo is a clear example of lesbian child pornography.
* The photographer, Nan Goldin, is a lesbian known for her homo-erotic pornography (”art”). Thus the “she’s a woman photographer” argument, made by those who wish to deny the obvious perversity of what is is staring them in their eyes, just does not cut it. Why add to the sexuality of such an “innocent” picture by giving it such a pedigree?
* The title of the “work” (Klara and Edda Belly Dancing) has a clear association with sexuality and in particular prostitution (belly dancers, as all the literate people who frequent these museums know, were the prostitutes of the ancient Arab world). Why add to the sexuality of the picture by giving it such a name if it is truly “innocent”?
* The title of the book in which it was first published is the “Devil’s playground”, which, beyond the reference to Satan (and evil), has connotations of sado-masochism (and look at the way the standing girl is dressed). Why add to the degeneracy of an “innocent” picture by giving it such a name?
* The supine girl, totally naked, has her legs spread, her vagina boldly facing the camera, and is staring at (and reaching her hands up toward) the vagina of the girl standing spread-eagled above her.
* The standing girl, while she has panties on, is wearing a risque top which exposes her nipples and resembles dominatrix outfits – it might as well be a leather band crossing her torso. Also she stands in a sensual pose – from the way she holds her arms to the way her lips are pursed – it looks like she may even be wearing lipstick.
I really don’t see how this can be judged a “normal” child picture – I would not dream of taking a picture of any child in that position, much less publicizing it for every degenerate person in the world to look at – the parents should be sent to the slammer! It is clearly child pornography, repulsive and disgusting. If a normal person tried to develop a picture of their own child like this in a Fotomat or the like they would properly be arrested and sent up the river for repentance. Why would someone take this photograph except to sexually exploit these poor girls? – but then to sell the picture and even to post it publicly, this reveals a disgusting degeneracy!
But, due to the decision of the authorities, it is now totally legal to spread this image through the Internet. Now the paedophiles (male and female) will have a perfectly erotic child picture to masturbate to legally. Congratulations, Ms. Goldin, for making the world a better place!
October 27th, 2007 at 3:39 am
take it of the web, its not right!
October 29th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Sage, you are an idiot…!
April 24th, 2008 at 11:13 am
“Sage , you are an idiot…!”
very good rebuttal. All the valid points that Sage made which were already obvious to anybody who disapproved of the picture.
I haven’t seen very good arguments made on the side defending the picture as to why it is not perverted; mostly just answers like “nuh uh, is not.” and “.your an idiot”.
since u people defend it, and do not have a reason which you can post where the rest of us can see, we can only assume that u are trying defend ur handlover instead of art.
Saying, “is so art” w/o a reason to why pretty much makes it look like u are saying that because u want the picture around, but dont have a reason to support the beliefs u are feigning
September 30th, 2009 at 2:15 am
I personally don’t think this is pornography. I have plenty of pictures where my older brother and I would dress up and put on “productions” as young as 5-6, we were raised on tv and would try and recreate it for fun and shere boredom. I being the younger would sometimes (can’t for the life of my think of why) would just strip naked and run a muck of the entire thing and my bro would get so mad and chase me around. Our folks thought this was all just too adorable and cute so they took pictures. This to me just looks like two kids playing and having fun. I’m not saying that one would find the content disturbing or distasteful, but I personally dont see anything wrong with it. As a parent now, I hope that our society doesn’t become so hyperconscious about stupid things like this where I’m arrested for having pictures of my son taking a bath or not wanting to wear clothes and running around the house naked. That’s all.
November 15th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
If you find this photo erotic then the problem is with you not the photograph. Maybe you should see a psychiatrist for your paedophilic tendencies.