Klara and Edda Belly Dancing Photo gets Sir Elton John in trouble
September 26, 2007 | Filed under Celebrity News, News
Sir Elton John could be in trouble thanks to a photo that goes by the name of “Klara and Edda Belly Dancing”; the picture in question has been seized from the personal collection of Sir Elton John by police investigating child pornography.
The picture was on loan from the singer to the Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art in Gateshead, so there should of been nothing illegal about this image which was taken by controversial photographer Nan Goldin.
What it does mean is bad news for Sir Elton John as it is being investigated to see if it breaches pornography laws.
The day before 5 collections were due to be unveiled, gallery managers alerted British Police in Northumbria because the so called art showed a picture of two naked young girls.
Apparently this photo has already been exhibited as artwork across the world without any objections.
How far do you think things can go in the name of art?
Leave a comment | Get the latest news in our RSS Feed, Newsletter or follow us on Twitter.
Got a problem with a game, product or service? Let us know so the community can help
They are pursuing an owner. Elton did not take the picture so why not pursue the photographer.
I have seen the picture and find it quite sweet and artistic. However as in all things similar, a naked child is not pornographic but if the veiwer want’s it to be then they are the ones with a problem.
I am a confimed and active naturist the human body is the human body! It’s just stupid people that make it something else.
Yes, it is art. If you are not a pedophile, the picture is captivating and beautiful, but not arousing. It has artistic merit and general appeal. Children playing without restraint is a lovely thing. Certainly, it could be taken by the disturbed in the wrong way, but by that logic any parent who allows their child to wear a bathing suit should be subject to prosecution.
Sir Elton John’s upfront manner with this regards to this photograph is very indicative of how it should be regarded. It is a work of art and not at all exploiting. Provocative, yes; unsettling, perhaps. But it is hard to deny the beauty of it.
“Klara and Edda Belly Dancing” for me evokes the childhood baths with my sister and the joy we took in them. I cannot imagine a scenario where my parents were pedophiles for having observed this, or a world in which we assume that everyone is so diseased as to see this scene as sexual.
Idiot:
Do you have children? Little girls? If you do (if not, imagine all this), take your little girl to a local artists, they can be found in the bohemian section of town. Now get your daughter to take off her clothes and while the photographer snaps pictures, have her tuck her legs under herself and spread them as wide as she can, making her vagina gape open. Still comfortable? Now, take this same (under 10 years old, as the model in the picture) and wait 15 years…..what do you think an adult who’se vagina is public property is like? Don’t forget children can’t make this decision so somewhere along the line a parent or guardian has expressely told an artist that they have no problem with their (once again, under 10 years old) daughter’s vagina spread open for the world to see. How would you feel toward your mum if you grew up and in your mind, what she did was wrong (as most people indeed do feel about showing the vagina of a child to an adult is) yet you cannot do anything to take it back?
Totally agree with daz, the people who take these photographs or indeed paint imagaes like this are doing so to make money. Those who buy such images are doing so because they like to look at that type of image.
I have two daughters, I wouldn’t want to own an image of a childs vagina nor would I have offered my daughters as models but there are many who would. It’s a sick world and
when internet porn is being cracked down on, what a perfect way to make money.
Maybe the parents of the little girls involved will live to regret their decision, when the money is all gone and their daughters images are being used to titillate some creature in a secure cell via his library visits.
Actually, daz, Klara and Edda are not little children any more. This photo is dated 1998, meaning that they are teenagers now. Yet I hear no outcry from them. Perhaps they are aware and mature enough to see it as a moment of playtime. I don’t actually believe this to be a staged photo, it is far too candid for that.
The really disturbing thing is that the photo, part of a 149 piece installation, is now receiving this specific attention and being disseminated electronically because the very people who claim to be “protecting” the children. In doing so, they actually guarantee that the real perverts can look at the photo and get their rocks off, rather than the relatively small number of people who go to see photography exhibits.
If I were one of those teenage girls I would be angrier and the moralists splashing the photo everywhere than my parents or the artist.
sexylikestotalk is talking a load of rubbish.
Photos are staged, unless the photographer was there by accident or sat around all day waiting for that particular shot. i have seen Nan’s art, and i see nothing more than someones snap shots being sold of.
there is no need to show the girl naked. If you are trying to show innocence then you have failed. the shot was done because it would sell, and so you are then exploiting the fact that she is naked, which then makes it pornographic because the photographer is using the girls sexuality to sell the photo.
Actually, stevo is the unlettered fool. You can’t just make up your own definition of pornography because it suits your judgmental and moralistic claims.
Pornography is printed or visual material relating to sexual activities or displaying sex organs with the desire to arouse erotic responses rather than aesthetic or emotional responses.
The fact that it is being sold has NOTHING to do with it. If a man takes pictures of a naked woman for himself to masturbate to and keeps them locked in a safe in his basement, it is still pornography.
These photos are not designed to have an erotic response. I don’t respond to them that way…most of the world would not respond to them that way.
Nan Goldin is one of the foremost practitioners of snapshot aesthetic…her photos are not staged. She has amateur models, mainly her own friends, go about daily rituals and life and sees what comes of it. Clearly she did not pose these children, but instead, watched them play. And if you think little girls don’t love running around naked than you really do not know children at all.
sexylikestotalk. The unlettered fool ?
No, Someone who makes a living selling nude photos of young children should be checked, and she has done more than this in the past.
Once you use the fact that the kids are naked then you are exploiting them, there is no other way of seeing it, and if you think you can justify it, then i have serious doubts about your mental condition.
If you like naturisum or anything to do with the naked body then fine, i have no problems with that, BUT once you start making money from it then you are then exploiting the fact,
sexylikestotalk - please don’t attack me personally for putting my view of events, it makes you look silly
Steve, you started the personal attacks, make no mistake about that. Guess you are the sort who can’t take what he dishes out.
Taking into account your imaginary definitions of words, I cannot expect you to have any deeper understanding. I personally have serious doubts about those who see children playing in a sexual light. Children play, and I certainly was part of similar scenes in my childhood. At the end of the day, this is simply art…a scene of exuberance that is rarely observed publically. I will grant that the photo is not “comfortable” for the viewer, but that isn’t the point.
Nan Goldin does not make “a living selling nude photographs of young children.” This was one photo in a 149 piece exhibit.
It is really funny that you attack me for my views and then tell me not to attack you for yours, all the while saying that “there is not other way of seeing it.” Very consistent. Do you consider all nude photographs of children to be erotic? Do you turn people into the police for “kids in the bath”-type photos.
Your comments about the photo is not “comfortable” goes against everything you say about the photo being a natural way of life.
i am not questioning the fact if this is pornographic or not.
you may argue that it is the mind of the person who sees the photo and their interpretation of the photo that makes it pornographic.
Which is why i question nans taking the photo and using it.
being an artist she would have taken the photo at the point she did to capture an image she wanted to display, if she didn’t then the picture has no artist merit as she would have taken a random photo.
it is a very hard line to draw, a newsreader was shopped to the police a few years ago because she had a photo of her kids in the bath, you are not allowed to take photos at a swimming pool or even on some beaches,
Why ? because there are unfortunately some sick people out there who take gratification out of these photos.
My argument, and last comment on this,
If you are an artist, you know what you are creating, that is the whole point of art. If a photo is uncomfortable then it needs to be for a vaild reason and not just for shock tactics.
Hmmmm…. Punish the artist instead of the pedophile? Sounds kind of backwards to me.
This news article and the whole debate around the ‘offending’ item drew my curiosity to search the internet for a picture I had, hitherto, never heard of.
Basically, I wanted to be informed so that I could form my own opinion on whether all the fuss was justified. That aside, as a very proud father of twin girls, aged 6 I thought I’d be as qualified as anyone in offering an educated opinion as to whether the picture was indeed offensive.
That said, once viewed, my dilemma with regards picture took a rather unexpected turn.
Did Elton John actually pay money to own this item? If he did, I think he would have been well advised to spend a little more time looking through a few more family albums before making his final choice!
In a new age of digital photography, all us parent-types are taking literally thousands of kiddie snaps every year… around the house, in the park, first day at school, 117th trip on a bus on a Thursday in September, the list goes on and on as our photo opportunities are now only limited by the size of our CF Cards! In this world of free and easy, no risk snapping though, some (most?) pictures are inevitably so bad, so immediately obviously a case of bad timing, bad position and/or bad thought process that they’re dismissed to the waste bin as quickly as our fat little fingers can press ‘Delete’, ‘Confirm’ on the back of the camera.
I think you can see where this is going.
Had I taken this picture… this so called piece of art… there is absolutely no way on earth, not even with the brightest sunlight impeding the view of my 3″ LCD screen, that this picture would ever… EVER… have survived this first stage of culling.
The lighting is atrocious; the angle is appalling, the background truly uninspiring and the content fails in every aspect. It is not endearing, heart warming, informative or special.
There is nothing in this picture at all, nothing, that would speak to me as a parent, telling me that this was worthy of that elite 5% that survive every stage of review/deletion that us Daddy/David Bailey types now stringently put all our photos through.
So I fail to see how a picture that would never make it into anyone’s family album has yet, somehow, managed to find its way on to the world stage, labelled as ‘art’!? Quite frankly, if this picture is art worthy of payment then I’m in possession of a private library full of Mona Lisa’s!
To me this isn’t art, it’s just a really poor photo that 99,999 out of 100,000 of us would have just deleted from their Canon Ixus 500s within seconds of it having been taken.
I cannot comprehend how it has come to be regarded as art and I cannot comprehend why somebody would want this picture in their ‘collection’ as I fail to see what pleasure can be drawn from viewing it. That is not a suggestion that it is offensive, just that, to me, it has been elevated to an unjustifiable status and I personally therefore wonder what part its content and which elements of society that appeals to have had to play in this.
I completely agree with Steve and Sexytalk is not completely accurate. Yes, it may have been an innocent moment of play and how cute that can be, I have two young daughters of my own. But NO PARENT with cares for the savety of their children knowing what lurks out there would put their child in a position to be considered something more than sweet and innocent. AND furthermore, children don’t just dance around and decide all of a sudden, “oh, there’s a camera and a stranger, I think I will strip naked or dress in my panties and torn stockings.” It doesn’t happen that way and thus, to some extent, this photo WAS staged. The girls were most likely TOLD to strip naked. Yes, the play was probably innocent and unstaged, but the use of nudity by someone famous for doing such was not. And parents taking pictures of their own children as naked babies is nothing in relation to strangers asking little girls to take their clothes off for ‘artistic integrity’. On that note, what child doesn’t just FREAK out when their parents pull out the naked baby pics? My children get utterly embarrassed at the diaper pics coming out. It became child pornography when the Artist decided to use naked children for purposes of selling to others who would be pleased by it. Yes, naked body art to one but porn material to another. The Artist was to blame, along with the parents.