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

* 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!

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.

Put the sicko in jail!