Perhaps you noticed, as I certainly did, that Mapplethorpe’s photograph, ‘Rosie’ , which had accompanied my original posting was replaced with Tracey Moffatt’s ‘ Doll Birth’. Highly agitated by this discovery, I immediately inquired as to why the change was made. The following brief IM conversation ensued:

Me: ‘Why did you change the Mapplethorpe picture?’

Guy: ‘Because I didn’t realize her vagina was showing.’

‘I guess that’s the point.’

‘I dunno I felt odd about it.’

Me: ‘Put it back up…..’

Guy: ‘Why?’

Here’s why — The inclusion of Mapplethorpe’s photographs; ‘Rosie,’ ‘Jessie McBride,’ ‘Eva Amur,’ and ‘Melia Marden,’ opens the door for a slew of interpretations of what is actually on display. Rather than simply a look at the “emotional tone of childhood,” as the Guggenheim prefaces the show, the collection of photographs becomes an undeniably picturing of childhood sexuality. Opie’s ‘Oliver in a Tutu’ and ‘Jesse’ and Schoor’s ‘Galaxy’ introduce the obvious underlying theme of gender identity in children, while Golden and Moffat examine “non-traditional” family dynamics.

So now I have questions. Why is the exploration of such themes, even when examined within the safety that ART allows, trigger such feelings of uneasiness? And why has the Guggenheim neglected to acknowledge that their curation elicits such specific and seemingly provocative interpretations? Does the notion of childhood sexuality really make us feel that odd?

I guess we all lack integrity at times.