[Washing Machine]

Perhaps the purpose of the work is too start these kind of discussions. The major concern here is that people of a perverted sexual bent might well get the wrong thing from the photograph. The problem is that sick people can become aroused by anything, should we ban children from being nude for the benifit of the sick minority. I don't think anyone would agree with that. Children should be free. They also should be safe. Its a thin line. Although I don't think the picture harms their actual safety. The second point comes from whether or not you believe the context is sexual. Which like any piece of art, depends of how you personally understand the intention of the artist. Nan Goldin is the only one who really knows. I think the important point I would like to make is that nobody believes the artist is promoting a pornographic view of children. The intention is to shock us if anything, Goldin certainly does not intend for us to be aroused by the image. Then again the perception of art is always outside the artist's control.