Nan Goldin and Richard Prince: The Decency Debate

NOTE TO READERS: I have taken down the following two images from this site, because they are being accessed by the wrong people for the wrong reasons. It’s giving my blog lots of traffic, but it’s not the kind of traffic I want. This is a haven for art lovers, not pedophiles.
Nan Goldin, “Edda and Klara Belly Dancing,” 1998, c-print
“Spiritual America,” 1983, Ektacolor photograph, edition of 10, Copyright Richard Prince, Courtesy Richard Prince and Gladstone Gallery
The Nan Goldin, top (before I removed it), is another print of the image owned by Elton John, which was seized by police this week as possible child pornography. It was on public display at a Goldin exhibition at the Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art, Gateshead, England. (The print reproduced above was sold at Sotheby’s , New York, for $3,000 on Feb. 12, 2004, from the collection of one of the Museum of Modern Art’s major art donors, Elaine Dannheisser.)
The second photograph is currently displayed in the Guggenheim Museum’s justfiably praised but, I felt, too large Richard Prince retrospective (to Jan. 9). It is the title work in the show, “Spiritual America,” but is hidden in an out-of-the-way spot, behind a bathroom and next to an emergency exit on the fifth floor. This image is called “incendiary” in the Guggenheim Guide, which describes its subject as “a naked, prepubescent Brooke Shields, posing in a brothel-like atmosphere, her face made up like a grown woman’s.” (It was appropriated by Prince from a photograph by Gary Gross, who had the full consent of Shields’ mother, but was later sued by the actress for copyright ownership.)
It is hard to imagine that prosecutors in New York would consider bringing charges against the display of the Prince image. But the BBC today suggests that prosecution related to the Goldin display is being considered, and quotes a “leading criminal barrister” in England, John Cooper, describing considerations that should figure into a prosecutorial decision about whether to take action.
It’s important to look at the circumstances surrounding the images. For instance: How old is the child? Have the photos been taken in vulnerable circumstances—in other words was there an element of exploitation involved?
…Another factor could be what kind of photographer took the pictures. If they are known to have a good reputation, then this will be relevant too.
The “reputation” test is easily met, as it was in this country’s Mapplethorpe trial: Goldin and Prince are highly acclaimed and widely shown artists, not porn purveyors.
But CultureGrrl readers already know that. Sometimes law enforcement officials and politicians just need to be reminded.