Is it weird that seeing a kid's privates doesn't freak me out? (I see no "dark open hole" here, either, as if a little girl's vulva is a train tunnel?) Has Jen Graves never seen a naked girl before?

Back in the heartland, we do this thing called "babysitting," and it involves lots of diaper-changing and butt-wiping, as would, one presumes, motherhood. It ain't porn to anyone who has cared for a child.

Agreed: "dark open hole"? Really?

And is it weird that my first response is that I'm not wild about the harsh shadows? Bad flash.

I have a daughter, and I agree completely with White Bear. I see two lovely happy girls having a lot of fun. Two little innocents. I admit that it's difficult to look at the nude girl without cringing a bit, but I don't know if that's natural, or the result of living in a society where everyone always assumes the worst. Luckily the nudity is not the main focus of the photo by a long shot, and there's plenty more in the photo. Maybe in 100 years people will look at this photo and say "look, two girls playing!" Also I think the "bad flash" actually adds an endearing quality to the photo. It says "family snapshot", and it makes the photo look like the snapshots we all took when we were kids, before we became fancy white-collar professionals and ate freshly imported spring mix with every meal. Frankly I like that flash, myself.

Actually, I think the harsh flash is what makes it look like porn. I doubt it would occur to anyone that a picture of two little girls was pornographic if it weren't for the insistently direct crotch-shot and the harsh, amateur-porn snapshot flash. Obviously, she's playing with that tension, but I just don't get Graves's reaction of feeling that horrified and self-incriminated.

I agree that Graves's phrasing overloads the image. I do agree with the general sentiment, however, that this would be a striking image to run across in an exhibition if only because it does ask the viewer to examine this image as something other than a snapshot. Taken generally, such as I present the picture on this site, it's an image that he viewer can accept as a snapshot—it's not unlike photos that my parents have of me and my brothers, acting silly, willies and all. On exhibition, though, this picture isn't a snapshot—it's invested with a larger significance. I don't think that, in context, the only significance that Goldin is engaging is to dare the viewer to convince himself that the image isn't sexual, and I believe that having viewed a few large bodies of her work (though not one including this photograph). However I don't think that Goldin is oblivious to or working on a project completely parallel to some sexual significance, the way that Sally Mann does with her photographs of her naked children. From a technical standpoint, I think the flash is crucial—I think it helps to withstand the charge that Goldin framed this image because it is provocative.

Goldin's work is difficult but there's just not a reading of it available such that it's instrumental in provoking sexually the photographer or the viewer. That is, unless the audience contains a pervert, but we do not curate shows on the assumption that a pervert might be a member of the public any more than we decide to bring a child out in broad daylight based on same.

Great comments.

Interesting that this debate is occurring at the same time as that new show on HBO and the new movie by Viggo M. Has the West gotten tired of holding it all in? Are we done pretending that images are supposed to be removed from reality?

(The last question could have been phrased beter. I'm not trying to go all Susan Sontag here. I know images are literally removed from reality. I'm talking more about staging, perhaps. Maybe my thought was better expressed by the director of Tell Me You Love me in today's NY Times article, where he says that, without more sexual frankness on-screen, "I’d have couples huffing and puffing under bedsheets. I don’t think a wife covers her breasts with bedsheets after sex. That’s an insufferable cliché in movies.")

Well, it is a revealing shot, but it does look like they are playing. I have daughters, and I would not want a pic of them posted like that, but I don't think anyone should be prosecuted for this. If you feel a "sexual urge" from viewing this photo, you have a problem. It is just a little girl, and she is not trying to be sexual.

I came upon this article by clicking a link on who-knows-what website, at least I think thats how I found it. Regardless of how I ended up here, this article, and indeed all articles I've read thus far, is very interesting.

For starters, I am a father of two. Older boy, younger girl. Both are age 7 or younger. So this puts my mind into two perspectives: 1) A father of a small girl. 2) A person who grew up around nudity.

As a father, I can understand why people might get upset with this picture. Jen Graves hits it on spot, if a bit over the top, with reference to "the dark open hole of the girl's vagina". But as has been pointed out, I don't actually see her vagina. All I see is her vulva. Forgive me for being open minded, but, even if you could see her vagina, don't all women have one? Yes, it is the most sacred part of the female body. But that's no reason to become paranoid about it.

And the there is me as a nudist. I grew up around nudity. I grew up with a family next door that consisted of an older girl, middle boy, and younger girl. Their family was more nudist than mine and no one had a problem with it. It was not unreasonable that us kids saw each other naked daily. We slept naked. We ate meals naked. And guess what...we played naked too. And there are many photos, and home movies, of us playing naked. And not just of us a young children. Even now we as adults we still play naked and take pictures of it. Would we have an issue with them being posted on the internet? No, because they already are. And having been in those situations I can assure you, none of us kids had any issues at all about our bodies being photographed in any way. So what if the girls were laying on the ground legs spread open to the world and the boys were laying there with their legs equally open? That didn't make it pornography. It was simply a picture taken in a moment of friendship preserved for all time.

Then there comes a thought...even underneath our clothes we are always naked. Are we not? Clothes came about for one reason, we needed them. The protect us from the elements, and to some degree make us comfortable. Oh sure there are people that will claim clothes are a sign of civilized society or religion. But when you get down to it, under the pants or skirt or dress or shorts, under the shirt, under the bra and panties or briefs, there is nothing but pure skin. If we weren't meant to be naked under all that, we wouldn't be.

So I'm not really surprised at the number of people going off half-cocked about the issue. I've seen everything from "Oh no! Those girls are naked to begin with!" to "So what." and everything in between. I am not ashamed to say you will find photos of my children that are similar on the internet. And I am not ashamed to say that I will continue to post them, regardless of what age my kids are, unless they ask me not to. Because for whatever reason, I am a reasonable person, and when I see two girls playing regardless of age, setting, clothing, or otherwise, I can rationalize and see the situation for what it really is. Girls playing.

Sorry for the long comment. I just think the world is to uptight for it's own good.

I think this photo, even done in the name of art, is exploiting these girls! What is wrong with people? How on earth can you say that nude pictures of under age girls (or boys for that matter) is ok? These girls have no way of making the adult decision of having their bodies exposed! I am truly appauled by the lack of discretion.

"How on earth can you say that nude pictures of under age girls (or boys for that matter) is ok?"

How on earth can you say that it is not OK Jennifer? Who told you it is not OK?

If, when I was a kid, somebody had said to me "I'd like to photograph you naked in lewd (or not lewd) poses," then I might have said yes if I was in the mood and trusted the person not to harm me (ie no machete, no kalashnikov, no sweaty glassball eyes etc).

If I found the photos on the net 20 years later I would defend that person's right to show them to the death. I took my decision, even as a child, and I would stand by it.

Who says I didn't have the right to take that decision?

PS I wasn't asked, but thats irrelevant.

Sweet memories of a naked stream walk with my sister when we were 8/10 years old. 2 miles of glorious shining water, knee deep, the sun kissing our bodies through the trees. I WISH someone had taken 10,000 photos of us so I could go back to that day, if only for a moment.

JAJA, UPYACHKA! UG NE PROIDET, BLYA!

pic is nice n i'm a VIRGIN 19 YRS ok

A great resource - many thanks!

Great discussion about the shot. I?m very curious about the opinion of Edda and Klara?s parents after the Nan Goldin?s work. Maybe they really think it was a beautiful and innoncent shot about their girls... There?s nothing wrong about the scene, but unfortunatly there are lot of pervetion on contemporary world and interdict work beacause of that it?s cruel to anyone who loves art.

it's just nudity, big whoop. i am 13, and have 100's of photos just like this, and much "worse" of me, my family, and my friends. I even have one of me having my first kiss, in the nude.

hello!