• Thu, Sep 27 2007

Is Elton John into child pornography?

eltonjohn.pngWell, now, THIS is a new one. And I don’t think there’s any truth to the whole child pornography charge – I mean, that’s sick enough that I can’t really make any jokes about it. Well, I COULD, but I think I’d get in big trouble.

Okay! So Elton John apparently has this big collection of photographs by some famous lady named Nan Goldin. One of these photographs is titled “Klara and Edda Belly-Dancing”.

Northumbria police said the photo was taken from the BALTIC Center for Contemporary Art in Gateshead, northeastern England. They confirmed Tuesday that an image had been taken from an exhibit “to assess whether or not an offense had been committed.” “The photograph exists as part of the installation as a whole and has been widely published and exhibited throughout the world,” the 60-year-old rocker said.

source

Want to see what the fuss is about? The pornographic photo? I’ve got it.

THIS is the photo:

klara-and-edda-belly-dancing.png

The girl on the floor is around 4 or 5. Her genitals have been blurred out, but this photo is not displayed in art galleries around the world with blurs. Tell me this: do YOU think this is child pornography? I’d like to hear your input.

Here’s mine: That absolutely IS child pornography. Sure, these kids were just fooling around, but there are way too many sick pedophile f**kers in the world for it to be OK to exploit a child like this for the sake of photography, no matter how artsy you want to call it.

Elton John can call this art all he wants, and those girls may be having innocent fun, but the photographer knew EXACTLY what she was doing. This is what is called child pornography – the exploitation of a child. Put clothes on the kids and the photographer would NOT have taken the picture. And damn you Elton John, for making me get my fat ass onto a soapbox today.

What We're Reading:
Share This Post:
  • al

    YES I DO FOR SURE WHAT A PIG HE IS GAY MAN

  • lala

    What sick freak.

  • http://askalesbian.blogspot.com/index.html AskaLesbian

    Absolutely child porn. It’s not only exploitive, but inexcusable of whatever parent or care giver snapped the picture. Makes me sick.

  • http://www.StarkedLa.com Zoe

    That’s just wrong! When I first heard about this, I thought it has to be bullshit, because the child-porn allegation makes it sound like Eltie’s getting off on it, and why would a gay man be into naked girls of any age?? I’m not convinced that he had the picture for those purposes, but that picture’s nasty… it’s not even good as photographic art. It just looks like some nothing picture taken at home with a disposable camera on pizza night or something… There’s nothing interesting about that pic – other than the mysteries of why it’s famous, and why Elton John wanted it… Gross, lame, weird, wrong… a hodgepodge of adjectives (all negative.) I’m so disturbed right now!
    ~Zoe
    http://www.StarkedLA.com
    http://www.BikiniMovieReview.com

  • Planet B

    you’re one sick f*ck if you think that photo is pornographic. you’re projecting your own problems with sexuality on an innocent child. your crime is much worse than any by the photographer.

  • R.D.

    This isn’t pornography. Porn is, to generalize, the depiction of the naked human form to generate arousal in the viewer. If the artist isn’t intending to make the viewer aroused, and I supremely doubt she was, it’s not porn.

    Your argument, also, is rather atrocious. Because some people are sick and might use it for nefarious purposes, the object itself is evil? What a dumb argument. A sick, twisted person might someday grab my pen from my desk and stab someone to death with it, therefore the pen is evil. Hell, a sick and twisted person might look at clothed pictures of young children to get off, those pictures must be evil too. Yeah, let’s ban all visual depictions of children. Let’s make sure they’re covered from head to toe when they’re out in public, too, you know, just in case one of these sick and twisted guys happens to be walking around with a camera phone.

    I’m not arguing that the picture is good art, all I’m saying is that because the kid is nude, does not make it porn. Are all depictions of nude adults pornographic? No. The same rule applies.

    Now, is this exploitation, even if it’s not porn? No, it’s not. Exploitation is the unfair and abusive utilization of another person or thing for selfish purposes, and I just can’t see a world in which the simple act of taking a picture of children playing, whether one happens to be playing nude or not, is unfair and abusive. It’s not like the artist is a paparazzi, sneaking up to the house and hiding in the bushes while snapping pictures. The artist was clearly in the same room, and I’d say that the children probably knew the artist, and were performing for her, to show off. Although those who are upset by nudity might wish to believe that the human form is, in and of itself, evil, depictions of nudity are not actually evil.

    That said, I do agree that the picture is fairly amateurish, but then, I guess I don’t really know enough about good photographic art to really comment on whether the photo itself is well done or not.

  • SpongeHead

    It is a naked person engaging in a non-sexual act. It is not pornography. Everyone of any age has a naked body under their clothes, there is nothing dirty or shameful or pornographic about that. Let’s not return to the days of the artistic fig-leaf, folks.

  • DK

    I do not believe the picture as a whole is pornographic. There has always been a fine line between art and pornography. It is unavoidable that individuals will look at any art from a singular, personal perspective because that is what art is about. One person’s garbage is another person’s art! The depth and value of art is how it affects you as an individual, what it means to you. You may find this “art” exploitive and offensive even though you may have a fountain in the yard with a statuary depicting a young boy peeing in the pond and find such to be “cute”. Those who find a sense of sexuality in this picture will probably find it distasteful or obscene, while others who see a “celebration of innocence”, will marvel at its unique vision. Unfortunately, there is an element in our society that will see it in the form of base sexual arousal involving young children and suddenly it is obscene. If we start challenging art on the presumption of exploitation and obscenity, so many great works will never come to fruition. Each of us as individuals will forever draw that line of acceptability differently. I read about an art exhibit in New York a few years back including a sculpture of Jesus formed in the medium of feces. This was terribly disturbing to me as I perceived it as obscene and an attack on Christian faith. You may view it as an innovative form of art. But if one part of society represses or denies the perceptions of another, the next step will be puritanistic censorship and book burnings. There is certainly artistic value to this photograph and I do not find it obscene. My perception is “celebration of innocence”, but at the same time, I cannot help but worry just what perception the guy down the street may find. The line is very thin indeed.

  • CHAD J ROBERTS

    IT’S A COLLECTION OF PHOTO’S HE HAS! IF HE DESTROYED THAT ONE IT WOULDN’T BE WORTH ANYTHING AS A COLLECTION. I personally like the white-trash element of the pictures, as a child I ran around naked having pictures taken all the time, it’s called childhood. WHO IS SICK, YOU ARE SICK IF YOU HATE OR GET OFF ON IT.

  • Pingback: Top Celebrity Gossip Stories of 2007

  • http://none Paul

    very nice picture indeed

  • sean

    I read this story quite a while ago- i’m a photography student, doing an honours degree in photography. One of my greatest influences as a photographer is Nan Goldin. Nan Goldins photographs are wonderful things- she uses Cibachrome printing on all her slides to get amazing colour and vision. She has been photographing since the 70s, and her images have ranged from junkies shooting up to AIDs victims dying in hospitals, from pregnant women in despair to the same women with their children in ecstasy. her photos have always been viewed as “risque”, “edgy”, or even just for shock-value.

  • sean

    I read this story quite a while ago- i’m a photography student, doing an honours degree in photography. One of my greatest influences as a photographer is Nan Goldin (the photographer who shot this photograph in question).

    Nan Goldins photographs are wonderful things- she uses Cibachrome printing on all her slides to get amazing colour and vision. She has been photographing since the 70s, and her images have ranged from junkies shooting up to AIDs victims dying in hospitals, from pregnant women in despair to the same women with their children in ecstasy. her photos have always been viewed as “risque”, “edgy”, or even just for shock-value.

    What is never taken into account is the ACTUAL subject matter… yeah of course its naked people, its sex, its naked kids, its junkies, bums, drag-queens- but all these people, (or at least a huge proportion), are both friends and relations of Goldins. The image in question- depicting the two youngs girls, is a photograph of one of her best friends children.

    The subject matter is only ‘pornographic’ if you perceive it that way… of course there will be pedophiles aroused by this photograph, as R.D. already stated very well: “…Hell, a sick and twisted person might look at clothed pictures of young children to get off…”. Why discourage beautiful, artistic depictions of innocence and the such by jumping on it as “Child-porn”!?

    When it comes down to it, Nan Goldin is a very influential, very awarded and lauded photographer. She has won awards: (the most recent being the “Hasselblad Award 2007″- for the portfolio in which this photo was included.) She has always gotten flak over her very real and very truthful shots, but i’m sure that probably has to have something major to do with her own serious perseverance.

    One last thing to note- I once worked in a photo-lab for a year and a half. Here i would VERY regularly get images of young children in a bathtub. This is obviously a standard practice for parents- taking images of a very special and personal time; bathtime; my question regarding this is, why should this be allowed when Goldins shot is reviled?