Apart fom the fact that this is rubbish 'art', the photo is in bad taste.
OK, so you make of it what you will, and whether it is good taste or bad taste is up to you - but really we all know it's crap art and in bad taste don't we?

richard, newcastle, uk

I have seen the photo on the internet and have to say of the little girl that is clothed, does she not look like she was dressed up? - ie the not tied in the "skirt" and the way the "top" was put on. I would be interested to hear from the parents side and how they feel about the picture as i assume their consent was given. I do feel for the children though, not the type of picture you want everyone to see when your an adult. Plenty of people have naked pictures of their children in family albums but i cannot see why you would want a picture like this, like others have said it isnt even very well done as in the light etc...

were pictures not taken of brooke shilds by Gary Gross when she was younger, in a bath i think and she has said how embarrasing she finds them now as an adult.

These types of pictures i do not feel should be on show for all to see, in a family album maybe but nothing else

Victoria Davis, Shrewsbury, UK

having seen this photograph the thing that gets me is how can this even be considered art? It's a horrid picture (subject matter aside). It's not even like it captures 2 children playing sweetly and innocently it's crap!

I don't think it will encourage paedophiles but I think that a photo that graphic of an innocent child who I'm sure will be embarrassed in years to come should not be put on display.

I'm thinking of becoming a photographer it seems that you don't need too much talent just take controversial shots....

Ami, blandford,

Thank you Michael Holloway: "I did not need to veiw these images to know that they are wrong". Did you bother to view them? Your entry doesn't make this clear.

Or are you the kind of person who is outrageously offended by The Satanic Verses, without having to bother reading it?

Having said that, I looked for it - yeah, I'dalso take it off display and wonder about those who wanted to display it...

Jon, Winchester, UK

We may all have pictures of our children naked or scantily dressed but we don't display them for all the world to see. Its' an abuse of their rights to do that. Did anyone explain to the girls in the picture that they would be shown all over the world in books and art galleries and be made money out of. Its simply exploitation of minors.
I am pleased that the people in the North of this great country had some sense!
Dean, Cumbria

Dean, Whitehaven, Cumbria

There is such a massive difference between parents pics of their kidies in a bath or whatever and a painting of 2 kiddies done by someone clearly into sex and drugs in a collection called the devils playground.

It doesnt take a genius to see the difference and why one is acceptable ad the other is not.

For those who say it is ok, I would ask would you be happy to let your kids go and pose for such a painting in front of such an artist obviously involved in sexual stuff & drugs and have their pictures immortalised in a collection called devils playground?

It is not i eye of viewer whether it is unacceptable or not at all, the artist has put it alongside pictures of sexual acts, drug taking in a collection called devils playgrpound, hence the connotations she is making are clear and it is her view she is pushing wrongly onto the general public who probably do not wish to have such visions and associations imposed upon them.

Carol, cambridge, cambs

Sure, many people have naked pictures of their children. But they don't make pictures of their genitals available to the public.
Some may recall being embarrassed when their parents pass the bearskin or bathtub picture around to friends and family. Imagine having it hung in a gallery for anyone to walk in and see. Imagine it being on line for pervs to wank off at.
The only people blameless in this whole affair are the children. Yes, they were innocent when they were photographed. But they are around 12-14 years old now; they must have been taught to respect their bodies; not to let people touch them in certain places or show those places to anyone. What are they, especially the naked one, to think upon knowing their parents had someone take a photo of those parts and made it available to the whole world? We remember how cruel kids can be; What if a classmate prints it out and brings it to school for show and tell? Or asks her to autograph it?

jnik, Richmond, VA, USA

I have not looked for the picture on the Internet precisely because I did not wish to be labelled a paedophile. Apparently unlike some previous commentators, I believe that it is perfectly acceptable to show some representations of naked children, be they starving in a refugee camp; running, napalmed, down a road in Vietnam; or (cast in bronze) peeing into a fountain in Brussels. It's all in the presentation and maybe the presentation in this case is questionable. It doesn't mean that all depictions of naked children (or cherubs) should now be classified as child porn, and just because some pervert somewhere finds such things erotic I don't see why everyone "normal" should not be allowed their art, or why a family snapshot of your toddler playing a badminton racket guitar while wearing only a bow-tie should cause the local photo processor to call the police. Would you ban shoes because there are shoe fetishists? Get a sense of balance!

NickS, Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK

Imagine the storm it could have caused if it was a picture of a mother breast feeding a child.

Political Correctness gone mad.

Like this Jane Scott from London whose argument would have every parent breaching their childs human rights if they ever took a photo at bathtime for the family album.

Matt, London,

The photograph described is a gross intrusion into a young girls life. She could neither object or agree to such a photograph of her innerself being displayed in such a fashion, parts of her body being displayed that she has never herself seen. I true artist would have avoided such titilation in their works unless they intended to produce what others would call pornography. I wonder how the girl in question would react if being told she was a pornographic model?

R Baker, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

You all sound like a bunch of bored housewives ! Get a grip ! It's a photo that's been around the world in several exhibitions, and only when it's showing in some gallery in England there's a big fuss about it !
Why don't you let the artist have her say ?
Stop condemning people like this, it makes no sense !!!
Ridiculous !!!

vandal, London,

As far as art is concerned I don't think it is very interesting, forgodsake I get bored looking at my own family's photo albums. But I certainly don't think there is anything wrong or indecent about the photo. In fact just because of today's media obsession with child porn i think this photo should be displayed to make the point that it is no big deal and to make it clear to paedophiles that they are sick to be aroused by something as innocent as children playing! If all art showing naked children is banned it's just telling paedos that they are right to think of children as sexual objects! Some weirdos are aroused by shoes... should we ban shoes?

NB: why does microsoft spell checker want to correct (paedophile) child-lover to (pedophile) foot-lover?

Daniel, huddersfield, west yorkshire

“You feel wrong and uncomfortable looking at it, as though you’ve trespassed somewhere you shouldn’t be.”


Isn't that one of the functions of art?

Jon, Bristol,

This controversy is ridiculous. Goldin simply recorded something that happened, quite naturally, and framed it. It is the viewer who corrupts the image. It is hilarious that anyone could see a scene like this, quite commonplace in any household with two small children horsing around, call it pornographic, and claim they are the moral ones. I look at it and see something completely innocent and funny. Who's sick? Not me.

Tom, London,

Some rather intolerant people have been quite annoyed with Elton John for some time for being succesful and a bit different. If the photo belonged to someone with a lower profile, perhaps with a nuclear family and less money, would anyone be bothered?

Neil, leicester, uk

What is to investigate? Any picture of nude children for sale is not
good.
The sale of it is what makes it porn.
Who would want to buy it?
Who would want to see it?
We need to stop this kind of art! art?

mk, Lorain, OH

I share Cosmo Landesman's perplexity about paedophobia. While visiting a primary school in Surrey, a small child fell over in front of me as I crossed the playground, and she began to cry. I picked her up, brushed the grit from her knees, hoisted her onto my shoulder and took her to Reception.

I was told later by the headteacher, who had seen my actions from her office window overlooking the playground, "We're not allowed to touch the children." The word 'touch' took on an altogether unsavoury interpretation. She explained that some parents can be litigious and the local education authority had issued instructions that pupils were only to be 'touched' by the school nurse. I asked if I was supposed to step over the fallen child and then report what had happened to Reception. She nodded.

What are we coming to as a society and do parents really want to sue when a stranger shows compassion to their child in anguish in an otherwise safe and supervised environment?

Peter Maskrey , Purley-on-Thames, Berks

Wait for it; medieval religious art declared child pornography. Are you ready for that? Check out Leonardo Da Vinci's "Madonna of the Rocks" among many possible examples. Paedophile-crazy UK; never quite got over its Victorian "dirty picture" fetish.

Andrew Milner, Yokohama, Japan

Having had a look, on the internet, at the photo in question I would make the following personal comments -
It is not the type of photograph a parent would take for the family album (with clothes on yes).
It is a rubbish photograph both technicaly and artisticly.
It is of a type that has been classified as child porn in the past.
Anybody who paid money for this photograph needs their head examining.

David Huckett, Charante Maritime, France

"Art shocks. That is part of its brief - to stir the senses, to question our humanity."

So, if a snuff movie is made by an artist for display in a gallery, is that OK then? Or wouldn't it be quite shocking enough, these days...?.

Of COURSE art has limits as to what we can permit it to do and show.

jane scott, London, UK

Though i do agree that this child had no say over her nudity being published worldwide, i remember a time when parents regularly let there children walk around nude in public my parents used to do it to me, art like this is only frowned upon in the more closed-minded ultra self-righetous "i'll think it before you do" mindset we as a nation have. Child nudity is not the issue here it's our lack of social trust we have.

Nude young girls isn't the this artists only focus, it is a picture from a varied collection and therefore it means no harm.

Elton John is gay...and he owns a piece of artwork that simply depicts children at play. The nudity has nothing to do with it...we were all born unclothed. If you don't like it...don't buy into it. As much as i disagree with it, art is not designed purely for asthetic perfection to a critic anymore, art is designed to make the critic think. Lets face it, it got you thinking!

Herowyn Beck, Wolverhampton,

Smug types sat that we lesser Philistines don't understand art. The trouble is, we do, we know what art is, and this is not art. This is exploitation. The photo's subject is clearly the naked girl's vagina. She has been either posed this way, or out of a number of 'snaps' this one was chosen, principally because of the way it is clearly exposed and calling the attention of the viewer. In no way is this an 'innocent' photo, and cannot compare at all to bath time photos or cute kids being cute.

Any parent who took a photo like this and was willing to proudly show it off "Here's my youngest when she loved to show off her fanny" would be considered a nut job at best and at worst the kind of parent who simply shouldn't be one.

Get real all you superior arty types. This is simply the abuse of a child's privacy.

Bruce, Ayrshire,

Sorry...back again! Of course those suffering from paedophilia will find it sexual but what sickens me most is that "normal" people are finding it sexual. I despair...I absolutely despair.

David Knight, Ellesmere Port, UK

I can't believe there is any debate over this piece of 'art'. It is wrong and helps to legitimise child pornography and paedophilia. If this picture was owned by an old bloke on a council estate, he would be banged up or driven out of town. Come on, it's disgraceful, please do not kid yourselves, this is not art, it is a reflection of your sick fantasies. Nan Goldin and Elton John have effectively legalised paedophilia, and no one will have the guts to touch them.

Franco, maidstone, UK

One has got to be really, really sick in order to find anything remotely sexual in this photograph. If you do, please call your doctor as a matter of urgency, and leave the rest of us to judge art by its artistic value. Thank you.

Pavel, London,

The Nan Goldin photograph is not posed, and is not exploitative - two issues that would go to classing it as pornograhy. Additionally, it has appeared all round the world, and is published in the UK in a book.

Have the police in Tyne & Wear not got enough to do - where is the crime here?

Chris , Crawley, UK

There are all sorts of arguments about this sort of thing, but the one that generally trumps all philosophy is the "argumentum marinorum", namely:

"Try telling that to the marines."

Robert H. Olley, Reading, England

All your correspondents so far exhibit a ridiculous sense of the self-righteous, McCarthyist witch-hunt so beloved by the gutter press in the UK. Nan Goldin's work has appeared in numerous exhibitions throughout the world. Art shocks. That is part of its brief - to stir the senses, to question our humanity. Having self-appointed Philistines declare certain artistic creations too dreadful to observe is like dunking an old lady in medieval times. You all need to grow up and spend your time worrying about things far more important, like children actually being killed or maimed for life by Bush and Blair's cluster bombs in Iraq.

Mike Mitchell, Spalding, England

Marion

"any one downloading this type of picture would be considered a paedophile"

By viewing the photo on the web, you have downloaded the file onto your computer (it's not like watching TV, you are downloading files to see web pages). I suggest you turn yourself in now.

Paul Russell, Bournemouth,

S'art innit? Pushin the barndaries. Look mate it's not by some sad old geezer hangin abaht the beach wiv is littel dijital issit eh! Iss a bit like that old Victorian vicar Louie Carol an is pix of little gels - iss all art. I mean he was a vicar - say no more eh. They don exploit no one. Druggies are happy wiv it if they git a fix art of it. An iss orlrite mate cos these artis they aint like the res of us. If they wass they wunt be artis now would they eh? Stands to reason.The criticals they tell us that an they shud know eh.

colin houlding, Bury, Lancs

An image is not just created by the artist it is seen by the viewer. Any work of art for public consumption has to take this into account. An artist does not live in isolation from societies rules.
The fact that the photographer is a woman does not make any difference to whether it is suitable for public display.
The image can also be seen in "The Devil's Playground (Paperback)", Phaidon Press Ltd (1 Oct 2007). This is just publicity to sell the book.

Quentin, Reading, UK

What universal patheticism (new word). Most if not all condemners writing here will be exhibiting double standards. The forming of a definition to apply to viewers of this picture viz: pedophile, is nebulous to say the least. We've probably all got pictures of our kids in the bath or of them running around the back-yard or at the beach in their birthday suits on a hot summers day - does this make us all child perverts???? The only perversion in this case (or others like it presented as art) is in the minds of those who choose to see the picture in a sexual context. If the artist did not intend the picture to convey sexual suggestion (and how could it - children this age simply love to play without the restriction of clothes as imposed by adults) - then the problem is solely in the mind of the viewer who cannot eliminate their prejudice before making judgment.

G Phelpps, Victoria,

What universal patheticism (new word). Most if not all condemners writing here will be exhibiting double standards. The forming of a definition to apply to viewers of this picture viz: pedophile, is nebulous to say the least. We've probably all got pictures of our kids in the bath or of them running around the back-yard or at the beach in their birthday suits on a hot summers day - does this make us all child perverts???? The only perversion in this case (or others like it presented as art) is in the minds of those who choose to see the picture in a sexual context. If the artist did not intend the picture to convey sexual suggestion (and how could it - children this age simply love to play without the restriction of clothes as imposed by adults) - then the problem is solely in the mind of the viewer who cannot eliminate their prejudice before making judgment.

G Phellpes, Auckland,

In the seven years since the photograph was originally exhibited, attitudes towards photographing children have completely changed. Gone are the days when we can innocently record images of children at play, at school events, sports events and so on...even pointing a camera at someone else's child causes uproar. Common sense or a PC world gone mad? Even editorial photographers are more guarded these days about taking photos that include children and many unsure of the rights & wrongs both legally and morally. However, is this not an incredible publicity stunt - surely the Baltic must have known what controversy it would create by flagging concerns over one picture to the Police, could they not simply have withdrawn it from public view? Is there an element of hypocrisy here, after all the Baltic are showing a film made of Spencer Tunick's 1700 nude locals in the Baltic giftshop to anyone interested in watching it including children!

Mark Smith, Newcastle, UK

I did not need to veiw these images to know that they are wrong. Art is an excuse for people to express their inner most thoughts be they right or wrong, you either agree and thing along the same lines as the artist or you see it as something else. The artist has photographed naked children, a crime on beaches in NSW, and surely an abuse of these childrens rights of privacy as I seriously doubt they were consulted on the taking of the photo or of how it would be shown and then sold. For a complete stranger to then want to own exclusively this picture is unfathomable, he neither knows nor has any insight to the the children inquestion, what their minds were on at the time of the photo, and neither does he have a real insight into the mind of the photographer (can't call her and artist). Reginald simply likes to look at children's exposed gentialia, perhap a duet with Paul Gadd is in the pipeline.

Lock him up a throw away the key

Michael Holloway, Sydney, Australia/ NSW

I agree with Marion.

I had in mind pictures of cherubic children all cuddly and plump and caught romping nakedly and innocently with the pots and pans on the kitchen floor - as they do.

However, having located the photo on the web I was pretty disgusted that the child had been photographed in such a way as to expose her genitalia in the most obvious and overt way possible.

I'm no prude, but I consider that picture to be totally unacceptable for display in a public gallery - it's offensive and lacks good taste to say the very least.

joan brady, bedfordshire, uk

Children don't sexualize every action, that's an adult behavior and perspective. Is it better to shame the child and try to impose adult dictums? The fact that there are some who inappropriately use such images means more restrictions are necessary? That would be fine for a society with the mentality of children requiring a parental government.

That said, I don't personally see any point to or particular value in the picture. That the monograph failed to sell at auction twice implies the rest of the collection isn't much better.

Pat, Portland,

Mrs. Goldin knows what the photo represents and she knows who will pay for it. The US networks do the same thing, with the same defence as some have posted here when questioned or criticized for posing children in inappropriate circumstances, "It's not us, its you." The ability to recognise what is clearly exploitive of the innocent for profit to the purveyors is nearly universal, and hardly a sign of deviance.

dsmith, colleyville,

Most of the people posting negative comments are full of fear and hatred. You're afraid of everything. Afraid of a picture of a naked child. Get a grip and look in the mirror, just think about it. Why are you uncomfortable looking at the picture? It is you who are perverted not the photographer (artist). Lots of things can be considered offensive in this world, and if we had to ban everything people found offensive we'd have nothing left. Anybody who is offended by it doesn't have to look at it and should look into a mirror instead and ask themselves why they find it offensive.

mpi, Canada,

I've hunted around on the internet and seen the photograph too. I do find it uncomfortable, but not pornographic or offensive. The main reason for my discomfort is that this does capture a moment of completely normal life with little girls. They do dress up. They do cavort around the house nude. They do display their genitalia to all and sundry, unselfconsciously, until we teach them not to (not the done thing/not nice/someone might be looking at you). This is an artist who specialises in a documentary style. And that is exactly what she is showing here - an unselfconscious snapshot of a time before we start censoring our children, and they start censoring themselves. And as such, I'd say it's a really important image, and worthy of display in public.

The other thing that bothers me is that the *curator* called in the police before any member of the public had seen it, and declared it 'offensive' or not. Why? Why not let us decide what we ought to see.

Margot, Toronto, Canada

Sounds to me like another case of people projecting their own values onto someone else's work, which artists are fairly used to by now. From the picture, it's pretty clear the girls are playing innocently in the comfort and privacy of their own home. Of course this could be used and perceived as pornography by revolting pedophiles, but do you really think that's going through the minds of these young girls? If you find it so terribly offensive, perhaps you are overcompensating in an attempt to repress some of your own sexual deviance. That said, I don't find it to be a particularly good piece of art and would rather it be relegated to a private collection.

Ben, Madison, WI

I took a look at the photo on line, since I didn't want to comment on it without having seen it. It makes me a little uncomfortable because it's the kind of picture that will appeal to paedophiles, though I don't think it's pornographic. I agree with Margot, however, that the kind of children's beauty pageants which require little girls to dress up in flashy clothes, wear makeup and prance around like calendar models are far more offensive than a picture of two little girls playing.

Grocky, Toronto, Canada

The artist herself should be blamed in the first case. However, a little more sensitivity on the side of the art buyers is desirable: I lived in a town where the director of the local court adorned the area in front of his office with several nude paintings - for a "temporary exhibition", of course.

A. Schelberg, Germany,

Unless the police are making the law up as they go, this picture, which, although I havent seen it, cannot be in breach of child protection pornography legislation. Our esteemed politicians explicitly exempted art from the legislation. Many paedophiles have taken advantage of this lawful exemption and possess such pictures to get around the law, The police cannot seize this work of art as being pornographic. Sorry

Mike Hunt, Phuket, Thailand

The key point is that the child cannot give informed consent to being photographed in this way. Therefore it is abusive. This is true of all such photos or sculptures or deliberate representations of an actual individual child, INCLUDING those taken by their own 'artist parent' (Sam Taylor Wood comes to mind!). Such artists are abusing the trust their children put in them, as they CANNOT give their informed consent to what such artists are doing - which is exploiting them. Maybe for 'art' not 'porn' but the exploitation is still there, and that is what repulses me. Poor kids, to have parents like that.

It also begs the question of just why the artists wants to make such an image, or why anyone wants to own or display such an image.

Art NEVER EVER EVER is more important than human rights - in this case the right of a child to her own privacy.

jane scott, London, UK

Even though the children may not understand what they were representing, and in their eyes they might have been "just playing", anybody with any basic understanding of sexuality knows better. It is a horrible thing for people to express their sexuality through children, who do not understand the real meaning of what they are role-playing. When we have children enact our own sexual fantasies and desires, we are merely using them as objects whose main purpose is to enact that which we may not have the courage to do ourselves. That they may not understand it is besides the point, the real issue is that people that can't control their own passions are having innocent children fulfill that sexual need for them.

Marcio Silveira, West Valley, UT

It is ridiculous to assume that a picture of those two girls naked could be child pornography.

Teresa, Madrid,

I've hunted around on the internet and seen the photograph too. I do find it uncomfortable, but not pornographic or offensive. The main reason for my discomfort is that this does capture a moment of completely normal life with little girls. They do dress up. They do cavort around the house nude. They do display their genitalia to all and sundry, unselfconsciously, until we teach them not to (not the done thing/not nice/someone might be looking at you). This is an artist who specialises in a documentary style. And that is exactly what she is showing here - an unselfconscious snapshot of a time before we start censoring our children, and they start censoring themselves. And as such, I'd say it's a really important image, and worthy of display in public.

If it's really paedophilia we're talking about, I find any number of photographs of little girls in mail order catalogues in inappropriate clothing, or girls in beauty pageants, far more worthy of our concern.

Margot, Toronto, Canada

I have to say that I find the image disturbing because if the naked girl's genitals were not showing them the image would be viewed as a very poor snapshot that almost anyone could take.

The photo is badly composed, poorly lit and not even level. If I had taken this photo I wouldn't have kept it. because it's not a very good photo. The explicit nudity of the child adds nothing to the image and in my view represents both exploitation and will be considered by the majority of people as child pornography.

Andy, FARNHAM,

To Marion of Witney.

"until i saw the picture on the web"

"any one downloading this type of picture would be considered a paedophile"

By your own admission you viewed this image on the web. Or put another way 'DOWNLOADED' it to your web browsers cache. In law you could be charged with 'creating an image' .

Are you a paedophile? Ask yourself!

Jerry, China.

Jerry Adams, bejing , China

I am quite flummoxed by the attention this is getting.

It is a natural photo is it not? The genitals of children cannot be considered sexual objects. Not, at least, until the owner of them begins sexual maturity. There is no deviant involvement, or sexual conduct, so it surely can't be seen as pornography - 'that which has a tendency to deprave or corrupt'.

It is a picture of two small girls. If that makes you think about sex then I think that is down to you, not the photographer or owner.
Bob of Anahiem to suggests that "Any paedophile can call themselves an "artist" or an "art collector"". Well, they can try, but I am sure their photos will be distinctly different to this.

Duncan, Sheffield, UK

It becomes immediately apparent that the focus of the artist and viewers are very different: the photographer has presumably tried to capture an "innocent moment" from childhood, on the assumtpion that the setting was not staged, but this is not how the audience have interpretted the picture.

Would the artist have been so set on taking the picture if the children were clothed? I doubt it. Such controversy has clearly provided free publicity and, I'm sure, its commensurate reward.

adrian, london,

...in a world we live especially in the present times with so much happening around us, the parents/ artist/ collector should know better. And moreover let us assume all three characters are intelligent enough to realise this.

It does not matter whether the parents were paid or asked permission for or whether "Sir" Elton John becomes paedophile just by owning this "art" or not!!.If i were him i would destroy it immediately and what more he can afford to loose that money...he probably won't even miss it!!.............

vandana, bangalore, india

Discussions about children and their persons are also put into the Media without the Consent of Themselves or their Parents.

These situations can be used for the promotion of other Agenda and people.

Those who should be Protectors undermine Children and Families and expose them to exploitation.

Objecting to the use of your child for Promotions/Photographs without permission may result in the removal of the requirement for Consent.

Digory, Narnia, Scotland

So viewing art should not make one feel uncomfortable or challenge the senses? We need art to do this otherwise we get daytime TV in the gallery, theatre, cinema etc. Not an acceptable outcome for a civilised society.

Surely we can discern pornography from what is art?
In fact a mother says that the photo is a "perfectly natural picture".
There is no reason for society at large to be deprived of a genuine artists output, because someone somewhere may choose to distort that image in their mind.

Bob, Asot, UK

I have to say i've tried to open minded about it, i've seen a thumbnail on the web and it does nothing but make me feel uncomfortable.
I have a decent education, studied art and design, but yet I can't see why someone would want to collect this image?

How can art be voyeuristic, pornographic images of children?
And... just because some high-brow artist calls it 'art' doesn't make it any different in content from some seedy guy making the image for other reasons.
Call it is what it is, just because you arrived at the final composition for artistic reasons doesn't change the images content.

Dave, Gibraltar, Gibraltar

I'm pretty sure that if that picture was in my "art collection" I'd be up before the beak in no time. If you own a snapshot of your own kids playing around then fair enough, but why would you want to keep one that explicitly exposes their genitals? Or photograph other kids genitals? Or keep such a photo? I suspect the shock value is the reason for this artist taking particular snap and doubtless Elton's reason for owning it - all posing as "art" - this is clearly cheap sensationalism, they should both get a grip of themselves and realise that this type of picture and their pretentious defence of it is naive, offensive and borderline criminal, as it encourages others with more sinister motive to think that they can do the same.

Doug Bates, St. Albans,

Any paedophile can call themselves an "artist" or an "art collector". That does not grant them license to be licentious or above the law, or undeserving of the label "pervert".

Perhaps an arrest for pornography is in order for the justice system to ensure that justice prevails. This would ensure that the rich and famous receive justice equal to that accorded the common man.

Bob Evans, Anaheim, California

This photograph is quite explicit and one exhibition promoted the discussion on whether the artist(s) were encouraging the viewers to 'surrender to our inner pedophile' (sic.USA spelling)
Even if the photographer did not intend such a response, a pose showing a child's vulva and vagina will attract voyeurs. Downloaded from the internet it could attract prosecution.

When does 'art' cross the line?

Linda Boyle, Horsham, UK

Agreed; had the girls' parents taken the photo and shown it themselves on the web, they, not being "artists", would be in prison and had their children taken away.
Whether this picture meets the standards of porn isn't as important as what kind of parent would consent to have such a photo taken, let alone put out in public.
There is such a thing as "informed consent". Children depend on their parents to make wise choices for them. They aren't capable of considering having such a compromising photo available to anyone on earth who wants to have a look at their genitalia.
Some have cited Renaissance paintings and Donatello's "David". Wrong analogy. The models for those works have been dead for centuries. The subjects of Goldin's photos are presumably alive, and still childres, judging by the age of the pictures. How will they feel growing up, knowing their classmates, friends, and co-workers will have access to these photos for the rest of their lives?

jnik, Richmond, VA / USA

I wondered what the fuss was about until i saw the picture on the web and was frankly pretty appalled by firstly the fact that the photographer was allowed/took the photo, second that Elton John bought it (not sure what it says about either the photographer or the owner) and thirdly that prints can be bought on the web for very little money. This is surely art posing as child porn - did the girls give permission, did their parents, were they paid? that the photographer is deemed important is no excuse - it is quite unacceptable to take photographs like this, any one downloading this type of picture would be considered a paedophile.

marion hebblethwaite, witney, uk