Tate Modern to display nude picture of 10-year-old Brooke Shields Alongside Pornographic Images

A nude photograph of Brooke Shields at the age of ten is to be displayed at the Tate Modern.

The decision to display the photograph of the actress has shocked critics, who yesterday called for it to be withdrawn.

They claimed the work, entitled Spiritual America, could attract paedophiles to the gallery.

The image will go on display from tomorrow in an exhibition also featuring explicit sex acts and works made from the covers of pornography magazines.

Richard Prince's 1983 image of Miss Shields shows her naked, oiled and wearing make-up, looking directly at the viewer.

It is hung in a room at the gallery in London with a notice on the door warning visitors they may find the image 'challenging'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1216924/Tate-Modern-display-nude-picture-10-year-old-Brooke-Shields-alongside-giant-pornographic-images.html">source

The female form is not, in itself, a pornographic image.

but this picture is a very disturbing image. (I've seen it.) She's definitely "sexxed" up, and Brooke Shields has tried to sue for the rights to the photo in the past, as she is unhappy with it herself.

I don't think it "straddles" any line. I believe that it crosses the line of child porn, and Shield's wishes to have complete ownership of the photo should be acceded to.

... another artist of dubious taste.

Ah yes. Complex. Challenging. Many-layered.

"The artist described it as 'an extremely complicated photo of a naked girl who looks like a boy made up to look like a woman'."

One who is "naked, oiled, and wearing makeup."

And hung in a gallery with every kind of adult porn. She was 10 at the time.

I'm sorry, but the ick factor here is pretty profound. I'd say they're full of shit.

Hekate

There's some bizarre shit there that someone decided to call "avant garde postmodern art" and that assertation goes unchallenged because, if you don't see that these are works of ART, then you just aren't sophisticated enough to appreciate TRUE ART. Circular reasoning at its finest. I lived in London for six months last year, and even with all the museums being free, I only went to the Tate Modern once. Once was more than enough.

If you don't see the clothes, then obviously you're too stupid to see them. :P

particularly in light of the fact that art is now made, curated, and consumed by... the bourgeoisie.

I may be accused of Mom-bashing", but a 10 year old should be under the protection of MOM..and not used as a tool to make money FOR Mom..:grr:

And she was on set for the movie Pretty Baby where Brooke Shields was in a nude scene at the age of 12.

I'd dare say it could be at least in part a reaction to the piss-poor mothering she herself suffered growing up.

My own mother was beaten regularly and routinely sent to comb the ditches for dandelion leaves - often the only food she was offered for the day. Her mother abandoned all 7 children when my mother was 6.

My mom was the most nurturing and loving parent anyone could hope for.

wearing a flesh colored body stocking that and
clever editing created the sufficient illusion.

I am quite curious about the Tate 'nude' I'm
guessing it is a very hyped but quite conventional
cheese cake teaser photo.

I have no bone to pick with 'Pretty Baby,' which was an honest look at its subject and no more egregious than 'Lolita' or a number of other films. But a body stocking? A) I'm far from sure that's even true and B) If so, it doesn't matter (except perhaps to law enforcement) in that the intent was to portray a young woman, nude in her bath, preparing for her arranged defloration.

not so much as one shot of Brooke Shields nude

Pretty Baby is very loosely based on E J Belloq's
photo essay on the brothels in Storyville New Orleans

I say very loosely meaning highly fictionalized.

Susan Sontag wrote the definitive essay on Belloq

You might want to look it up.

Somewhat disturbing, IIRC.

With regard to Brookes' bare behind, I just did a photo search on USENET and If that's a body suit, it's verrrrry thin. Monomolecular, in fact. I think I'd better delete those photos and scrub them. What was legal in Playboy in the 70s can get you arrested today.

I remember being in New Orleans when that was filmed; that nude scene was a huge deal.

in the movie. In a David Hamilton soft porn sort
of way.

and a crazy stage mom who pushed her to do many things that were inappropriate for a child. Her mom agreed to these photos. Her mom was a monster.

The scene where Bruno is auditioning children for a photo shoot, and asking the mothers stuff like "are you OK with your child working with poisonous snakes and rusty knives or being crucified?" and they all consented to whatever crazy shit Bruno was proposing.

http://blogs.babble.com/strollerderby/2009/08/12/plastic-surgeon-suggest-liposuction…for-a-toddler/

I may be accused of Dad-bashing", but a 10 year old should be under the protection of DAD..and not used as a tool to make money FOR Dad...

:eyes:

You've maybe got a PhD in art history or curating? Perhaps an MFA in fine arts and your work is internationally shown? If not, let these people do their job - they don't tell you how to do whatever it is that you do and say you're "full of shit" for knowing something they don't know.

Little Brooke was 10 when that pic was manufactured of her "naked, oiled, and wearing makeup" and apparently ambiguously gendered. It's now hanging among adult porn. I wonder what class of "art" that makes the photo of little Brooke? I am observing what the curators do, not so much what they say. They placed that photo amid adult porn.

When Persephone was ravished away her mother Demeter just about tore the world apart looking for her -- and Persephone was of marriageable age, not prepubescent. Hekate was the one who heard the cries of the maiden. (Brooke's mother was more interested in selling her daughter, but that doesn't make it right.)

My world is mythology, and if you want academic creds I have 'em; you can PM me to find out about them if you really think it is relevant to my ability to give an opinion on this subject.

Hekate

That was put in the story to make it provocative - the art in question was BASED on pornography involving adults.

Do you really think that the curators at the Tate don't know about art? I know that they know more about it than I do, and I'll trust their judgement. People put up a big fuss when they bought some Carl Andre sculptures in the 70's or 80's, which is crazy. I do love Carl Andre. I'm not interested in the work in question here, but I trust these people to do their jobs.

Sure, provide me with your academic credentials if you want - I just hope they're not something that every single member of the general public won't immediately understand, or else we'll have to thrown them on the pile during the book burning.

You can PM me anything you'd like, but I'd prefer to have a public discussion.

me: BM, 2001
MFA, 2005
PhD, in progress

All in music, so I'm no authority on visual art. That being said, I do know that most people's judgments of music sound absurd to me, and I assume that the same goes for the rest of the art world.

anyone? If you see porno there you prolly are sick.

i just checked--she was 12 or 13
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078111/

...and find this interesting, in light of all the controversy about the Polanski case, which occurred around the same time.

Like it or not, attitudes toward youth and sex were very different at that time. There was pretty much the assumption that, by the time a young male or female teen reached puberty, they were mature enough to be able to make their own decisions on how they handled their sexuality, and bear full responsibility for their decisions.

Whereas, nowadays, a teen a few minutes shy of his or her 16th (or 18th in some states) birthday is considered to be nothing more than a naive child unable to make their own decisions, and 100% susceptible to any suggestions that might come from older partners -- and, then, to have reached that magical state of total responsibility a few minutes later.

Personally, I'm not sure either position is a true refection of how things really are.

But, as I said before, it was a very different time back then.

how i was and how my friends were...

oh yeah.


(like night and day when you compare it to the 90s and today)

and less to do with maturity.

Young men having sex at any time in history was viewed as their testing the waters and encouraged as a learning experience.

Young women having sex was only condoned if she was joined in marriage or if she was a prostitute. If she was the latter, her life was basically shit and in some rare cases she might be fortunate to make a living and do well if her patron(s) were well off enough and if she managed to keep them enthralled long enough and save her cash.

It is only in recent times that women began to have legal rights to their own children. All they were viewed as were breeding vessels/property. Children were property as well, but to be a girl child you went from being your father's property to being your husbands property.

60 years ago even, spend the night out with a young man and not even have sex and your reputation would be ruined and any chance for a good marriage would be taken off the table. You would be soiled goods.

In Pretty Baby, a child who had never been touched was viewed as a trophy for some rich man to despoil as I recall. Bidding on the rights to deflower a young girl/object.

At any time in history and even today, men can sleep around and it is seen as their right and they are lionized, not so much for women.

We are either Madonnas or Whores.

If we are raped, we are judged by our past, we are judged by who we know, what we drank and ate and even what we might have worn that caused that poor man to act out of control. Was the pretty object wearing something so alluring? Was the pretty object drunk? Was the pretty object a slut?

That is not to say that there are not 13yo teens are happen to be mature enough to have sex, but to encourage them before they are mature enough is stupid.

As long as it didn't interfere with the marihuana smoking and the small animal sacrifices for Satan.

Kids need structure.

"youth culture" - which came, mostly though indirectly from media.

women were responsible for their beating. males were still the providers and dominent in the families. it wasnt because the kids were any more grown up, or thought they should be having sex. it was more the idea there was no line drawn of acceptable or not. things had just started shifting at that point, and people hadnt gotten to the need for the line

men pretty much kept their own line, with exceptions. and then there was outrage when someone stepped over. and i am not talking about teen sex on teen sex.

brooke shield, taxi driver pushed the line and society spoke out on both of those.

if our children were preyed on, people were bothered

it was also this time that aroused people to start talking about family rapes, date rapes a little later.

In the U.S. I was about that age. no way were we encouraged to make any such "decisions." It was not normal for 13 year olds to have sex.

line. and appropriate behavior. there was a freedom, but much more respectful than today.

and then you had the few. but they were ostracized, condemned.

dorms, & men weren't allowed to visit after dinnertime. I don't know where you're from, but over here in Washington teens definitely weren't expected to "make their own decisions & bear full responsibility" about sex. They weren't expected to have sex.

I still remember how disgusted I was when Brooke
was brought out on a platter for the highest
bidder. Also when she married the old man
(to her) and was in bed with him and her dolly.

:puke:

and did a full frontal nude shot.

just disgusting.

hey I can be an artist who makes "challenging" art to: how bout I shit on the face of the Tate curator(s)? That sounds like some pretty "challenging" modern art to me.

Punishing a film-maker for child rape is "puritanism" to these people.

Phrases like "perverted bohemians" really make me wonder if I'm still on DU. :shrug:

I wouldn't want fascist prudes showing up at the museum by not showing the art.

The mind boggles. :crazy:

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If he were alive today, there is no question to anyone familiar with his writings, that he would have nothing but contempt for child porn and he would being calling out Polanski for the monster he is too.

If not, please re-read my post and realize that I am in no way attacking Nietzsche.

Good luck! :hi:

Yeah, he'd have none of that.

I'm thinking, "Shit! I've gotta get that Nietzsche off my shelf!"

Man, and that post modern thought. I need to change my entire syllabus for my class next Thursday.

Whew. That was close!

Or is this one of those cases where you don't need to know it in your head, you just know it in your gut--much like fundamentalists who've never read the books they're burning, they just know they're baaaaaaaaaaaaad!

:shrug:

ETA: Just so that we're crystal clear regarding your critique of postmodern thought...
Nietzsche
Kierkegaard
Hegel
Heidegger
Rorty
...these men added nothing of value to philosophy?

In fact, IMO he was the first one. Rorty was an apologist for PoMo, such as Derrida's nonsensical gibberish, in his later years, but I really wouldn't call Rorty himself a Postmodernist, just a disappointed Pragmatist.

Kierkegaard and Heidegger were Existentialists. Hegel was a German Idealist, another bunch I hold in contempt almost as much as the PoMos for their bastardizing of Kant.

Probably just my Asperger's talking, but I can't "study" nonsensical gibberish.

I presume you're a moral Absolutist who disagrees with modern anthropological theories regarding cultural relativism--i.e., you decide whether something is Right or Wrong, and then you expect the entire population of the world, across the entire span of history, to conform to your personal ethical code. (Interestingly, the primary group of like-minded individuals in that corner consists of religious fundamentalists.)

Of course, I'm merely guessing that you're a moral Absolutist, as you've presented no real criticism of Nietzsche's writings here, nor have you explained the correlation between postmodernism, bohemianism, and pedophilia. Instead, you've presented a critique of Nietzshce's readers--and a parochial one at that, consisting solely of argumentum ad odium, slippery slope, and cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies.

However, I do stand corrected that you are completely ignorant of postmodernist philosophy. I'll correct my statement thus: You appear have a sophomoric understanding of postmodernism, its historical context, and the core contributions (including epistemological pluralism) of postmodernist thought to the arts and sciences.

An argument against postmodernism is nearly always an argument for Ultimate Truth from a particular authority. That authority can be external--which I would hold is not a progressive value--or it can be internal...but most psychologists would label that Megalomania. :)

Something is true if it corresponds with the facts

As for ethics, I have only contempt for cultural relativism, It's an excuse for misogyny, atrocity, and other abuses of human rights. If something is morally wrong (like treating women as inferior to men) here it's wrong in Baghdad and Shanghai, too. Athropology deals with description, "what is", not prescription, "what ought to be".

Surely you can see the dark, Objectivist/Totalitarian-Materialist alley down which this way of thought leads? :shrug: There is a world of difference between the scientific method and Scientism.

As regards your contempt for cultural relativism:

I assume you support a sweeping overhaul of the Constitution, right? After all, states' rights are irrelevant when there is a single, universal, objective Truth, right? I suppose we should do away with civil codes as well, because zoning laws, operating hours, speed limits, etc. should all be objectively measured and compared against Universal Laws founded in scientific data. Come to think of it, shouldn't we have a single, global set of laws for each and every human being? And dress codes should really be normalized across the entire globe, shouldn't they?

While we're at it, why do we allow this Babel of having different official languages for different countries? Surely there aren't any complex emotional concepts which cannot be expressed just as well in Esperanto, are there? And since humans can biologically survive upon a fixed number of calories per day, why not simply dictate globally how much we're allowed to eat--but only from certain, permitted, objectively tested foods that contain the maximum nutrients per weight/volume, of course!

:scared:

---

Again, you're not doing your argument any favors with these sweeping, broad-brush pejorative stereotypes of complex concepts such as postmodernism and cultural relativism. I hope you can take a step back and see that.

Read some.

Try again.

That allows them to think that ordinary morality is "bourgeois" and below them, Nietzsche's "master morality" versus "slave morality".

Moral absolutism is a tenable philosophical position, but you're really not doing yourself any favors by arguing against straw-man stereotypes.

Next you'll be telling us that anyone in a black turtleneck is amoral? :shrug:

Famous artists, politicians, business leaders, Those "The Family" Christo-Fascists...

Personally, I'd say "many" corporate executives are amoral before I'd start accusing "many" artists of being amoral.

Would you go so far as to say that most "artsy types" are amoral?

Who is elite in a given community is highly dependent on the features of that community. Roman Polanski is elite among filmmakers. Reverend Bob or Coach Smith may be elite in their respective milieus. People in their circles may be just as apt to turn a blind eye to or excuse their predatory behavior as those in Polanski's circle were/are for his. The 1/4 or 1/3 of the population may not be abusers themselves, but there may be at least that many people who are willing to aid and abet them, because the abusers are so "important".

There was an assertion made that "many" of these "artsy types" are pedophiles.

So far we've discovered that the statistic is less than or equal to 50% of all "artsy types," but we've not yet discovered how prevalent pedophilia is among the remaining minority of this population.

I, for one, would like to know precisely what percentage of my "artsy type" or "perverted bohemian" friends--and those terms would probably describe the majority of my friends in San Francisco and Los Angeles--are pedophiles.

After all, if "artsy types" and "perverted bohemians" are more likely to be pedophiles, shouldn't we pass laws to restrict their movement, enforce their registry on a list of potential pedophiles, ensure that they don't work with children, etc.?

:shrug:

Sure, we'd have to cut out all Art, Theatre, and Music classes in our schools. And of course we'd have to burn every copy of Nietzsche's works. But really, isn't that a small price to pay for peace of mind?

Leaders can do no wrong even when demonstrably wrong.

are always the first to go. Glad to see the Democratic party has caught up to the fundies and fascists!

I have little patience with all forms of elitism. Doesn't matter if you are a businessman or a famous director, you are not inherently better than anyone else.

This is not a thread about Polanski, in case you hadn't noticed.

Film was just the first medium to pop into my head. I was not trying to derail this thread.

That thinking being a great artist is not an excuse for rape is Fascism?

But many former fascist regimes used the tactic of picking "the one" to provide the rationalization for smearing and persecuting whole groups of people. It usually starts with artists, writers, journalists. It's a favorite tool of the fundies too. (And emotionally immature, meltdown-prone pitchfork wielders.)

I disagree with your cliched view of people who work in the arts. Many artists are highly empathetic, sensitive people, who have only to look at you in order to divine your pain. Many innately grasp the human condition and are able to put it into words or onto a canvas in a voice that moves and profoundly affects others. People reap the benefits of a world filled with art every single day, and if the words, music and paintings evaporated tomorrow, we'd be a sad, bereft planet.

But since you're going for stereotypes here're a few more - all doctors are pompous, God-complexed drug-addicts. Everyone who works in IT has Asperger's and dresses like they're color-blind. Female bus drivers and construction workers are all lesbians.

What illustrious field do you grace with your talents Odin... that encourages you to so easily dismiss other people?

And I never said it was just artists. It's any group that had predispositions to elitist behavior (like CEOs). I just talked about artists because of all the people saying that child porn is OK as long as it's "art" and that Polanski should not be punished because he is a great filmmaker.

Your posts 16 and 56 say it all, though you are otherwise quite prolific in voicing this new schtick of yours.

I guess it WAS such an artist who created Spiritual America. Even just the title alone should give away the artist's intention, which is to ridicule America's insatiable hunger for exploitation, to the point where we consume children, and how far we've come from the time of the original work, created in 1923 by Georgia O'Keefe's husband. I guess you have to be an elitist snob to know how to read. ;-)

But since we're so outraged and "mad" at Polanski, it's a good opportunity to blast artists and art in general, hell let's drag in all those students of philosophy at the same time. Dirty Nietzsche-reading PERVERTS.

Like I said, a tactic fundies and fascists have always been fond of.

Nothing in there about screwing children.

Once you've actually read Nietzsche, you have become a "perverted bohemian," and your opinions on the matter are no longer relevant.

So it goes. :shrug:

With a BM fetish.

What a silly question. :)

Pervert. :)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I hope Bubba likes multiple hyphens.

Back on you go

my fellow atheist doesn't get it.

Polanski and Nietzsche do not belong in the same paragraph. I am here to defend Nietzsche, not Polanski, who deserves a long jail term, along with some intense therapy.

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

Nietzsche's philosophy does NOT equated to sexual perversion! That's a real stretch.

It is hard enough to remember my opinions, without also remembering my reasons for them.
-Friedrich Nietzsche

Yeah, really perverted okay.

:sarcasm:




(Nietzsche was poking rethug types, in case one of them is reading and this has to be explained.)

Do you want to pay curators at one of the world's greatest art museums to talk shit about whatever it is that you do that they know as little about as you do about their work?

Here is a challenge to the artist how about making some Art that is visually incredible and not child porn. I bet $$ he/she can't do it. No ideas, just using cheap sexual stuff to advance their career because they have nothing else. HACK

contemporary art to view the picture; they can perform a simple Google Image search and see it from the comfort of their own home ...

Brooke Shields nude photo, Richard Prince's 'Spiritual America,' removed from Tate Modern exhibit
By Vicki Hyman/The Star-Ledger
October 01, 2009, 9:36AM
http://www.nj.com/entertainment/celebrities/index.ssf/2009/10/brooke_shields_nude_photo_rich.html

:popcorn:

:spank:

Particularly Odin and Kitty.

i am unsurprised.

And not really surprising that it was proposed and taken by a photog working in the advertising industry.

Think about it.

it almost looks like her head was photoshopped on to a different body. Or back then, transposed?

Kind of looks like that Scorpions album cover.

I didn't find it erotic, either. I found it more of a statement on our overall sexual confusion.

of an obvious child. Almost like mocking anyone who would find a child erotic.

"It takes the form of a ready-made or found object – a publicity photograph showing the prepubescent actress Brooke Shields naked, her body wet from the bath. What's more, her hair has been elaborately done and she is wearing so much lipstick, mascara and eye shadow that it looks as though the head of a 25-year-old Playmate had been spliced on the body of a child. The original photo was commissioned with the approval of the child's mother who, as her manager, allowed it to be published in the soft porn magazine Sugar n' Spice as a tactic to get her daughter noticed and so further her career.

Prince framed the photo in an elaborate gilt frame, and then hung it alone. The heavily ironic title, Spiritual America, was used by Alfred Stieglitz for a photo taken in 1923 showing the haunches of a work horse. By using it Prince wasn't inviting us to ogle the child, but to see exploitation as symptomatic of what was happening in America in the mink-coated Reagan years."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturecritics/richarddorment/6249734/Tate-Moderns-Brooke-Shields-photograph-a-crass-lack-of-morals-in-mink-coated-Reagan-years.html

His schtick was apparently always to "recreate" other people's work; he did a whole series using the Marlboro man, as I recall, claiming to have "augmented" the originals. In this case, the original was done by another goon, Gary Gross (warning--this link contains three shots from the same session), who was involved in a long legal wrangle with the mother later, when Brooke wanted his rights revoked. In the end, it was ruled that her mother had signed away her rights and he could do whatever he wanted. In the end, he sold the rights x10 to Prince, who then zoomed in on her, cranked up the saturation, and. . . called it "art."

Yes, the so-called artists are pigs, any gallery using this is pushing the limits and trying to legitimize child porn as something more lofty than it is, and mostly, I have to wonder why Brooke Shields hasn't bitch-slapped her mother for whoring her own child like she did. She could argue that Pretty Baby was exposing something ugly, but in painting her child up and allowing her to be photographed like this, she essentially played a comparable scenario out IRL. That a mother would pimp her child like that is unconscionable.

Ugh. There isn't even an emoticon to convey the willies properly.

Which was basically launched by her mother "pimping" her out.

Without her mother, Brooke would most likely be another aging housewife today.

I should have let sick fucking scat-munching assholes who intellectually and physically slap their meat into believing what they do is somehow "art" or justifiable in any other possible universe just do as they wished.

HEY! As long as they get rich it's all good right? Never mind the fear, the nightmares, the depression, the shame, disease, stigma, etc. Little girls should all be available to sick fucking pus-buckets who CALL themselves "men" who are apparently incapable and impotent in the presence of real women.

Yeah. Fuck that. And fuck every rape and kiddie porn apologist who ever lived.

Just pointing out that Brooke Shields owes her fame and fortune to her mother "pimping" her..

You apparently do not disagree with that fact.

Edited to add: At least Brooke Shields, unlike the average American housewife, is unlikely to ever have to go without health care.

Art Nouveau depictions of romanticized nymphs

In the context of Gross's photos of Brooke they
just look like flat footed neo romantic pictures
of a kid in a bathtub with make up on.

It's not even as controversial as the Led Zepplin
cover art for Houses of the Holy.

What am I missing? Did he wait a long time to develop the photo or something?

Maybe they'll re-release it now.

I've seen them. They're harmless.

I just looked at them, and my penis didn't move one bit. Makes me wonder what all of these people who know absolutely nothing about art are afraid of by calling it child porn.

until I realized it involved 99% bullshit and ego, plus a probable future teaching high school arts & crafts if I wanted to eat, so I'm not exactly ignorant. The fact is that this IS exploitative. The fact that your penis is connected to a healthy brain does nothing to excuse the large population of sick fucks who DO become aroused at the sight of a child with a ton of makeup and little else, in very provocative poses. I don't think you can employ the same standards of what's acceptable when you're talking about minors.

I have no problem seeing nudes, "art" or not. I also have no problem seeing nude children in the right context, but I'm sureashell not selling pix of my kids jumping through the sprinkler to anyone, especially with obvious prurient interests.

I suspect a lot of the apologists do not have children yet or they wouldn't have such a hard time seeing the difference.

No, I don't have children. Maybe my feelings would be different if I did - I don't, and can't, know.

What I do know is that if we start down a trail of having an angry public decide what is and what is not acceptable within fine art, we're headed towards book burning. These things - historically - go hand-in-hand.

I don't think I'm an apologist. I just know enough about this to know that I don't know how to properly engage in a viable critique of this work. Because of that, I know that I have no business telling these folks how to do their job. If this one work were to be removed because of a knee-jerk reaction to it as non-art, then we would have to react to all such demands and the world would be a far worse place to live.

Ultimately, none of this has anything to do with how you live your live - what you think is acceptable for you or your children to view and take part in is your choice as it should be. This has nothing to do with that. If you want to keep things that way, don't you think you should let others do the same? If you're happy living in a world where YOU get to force your personal standards of taste and decency on a general public, you should have no problem living in a world where others get to tell you what is right and wrong for you and your family. I don't want that for anyone.

. . . that this is a slippery slope. Normally, I wouldn't get my knickers in a twist, but it's the fact that it involves what was then a child and in this instance specifically, she was being displayed specifically in a porn exhibition. The intent seems clear. I think there's a moral imperative that takes precedence when we're talking about kids.

FYI, I didn't mean to allude to you, specifically, as an apologist. You were just in the line of fire when I happened back to the thread. :)

It actually involves a lot of scholarship. Is there bullshit and ego? Of course, there is. There is in everything. But it's easier to just generalize and stereotype.

The ignorance of how the visual arts have come to work in our society shown in this thread on a "progressive" website is astounding.

I'm surprised we haven't been called "art fags" and stuffed into a trash can yet.

There is too much crap "art" that is just made to shock and then given an "intellectual" justification.

Then again I think most abstract "art" is meaningless bull.

Gallery takes down photo of actor when she was 10, made-up and nude, after advice from Met's obscene publications squad
Charlotte Higgins and Vikram Dodd
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 30 September 2009 17.53 BST

A display due to go on show to the public at Tate Modern tomorrow has been withdrawn after a warning from Scotland Yard that the naked image of actor Brooke Shields aged 10 and heavily made up could break obscenity laws.

The work, by American artist Richard Prince and entitled Spiritual America, was due to be part of the London gallery's new Pop Life exhibition . It has been removed from display after a visit to Tate Modern by officers from the obscene publications unit of the Metropolitan police.

The exhibition had been open to members of the Tate today before opening to the public tomorrow. A Tate spokeswoman confirmed that the display had been "temporarily closed down" and the catalogue for the exhibition withdrawn from sale. The work had been accompanied by a warning, and the Tate had sought legal advice before displaying it.

The decision by officers to visit Tate Modern is understood to have been made after police chiefs saw coverage of the exhibition in today's newspapers, rather than as a result of complaint ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/sep/30/brooke-shields-naked-tate-modern

One was taken for PLAYBOY, one was not.

Well, maybe for you, Odin, but neither are pornography.

for $450 – had been taken by a commercial photographer, Gary Gross, for the Playboy publication Sugar 'n' Spice in 1976. Shields later attempted, unsuccessfully, to suppress the picture. Prince used the image as the source material for his own 1983 piece; he placed it in a gilt frame and displayed it, without labelling or explanation, in a shopfront in a then rundown street in Lower East Side, New York ...

Tate Modern removes naked Brooke Shields picture after police visit
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/sep/30/brooke-shields-naked-tate-modern

I suppose some people might consider the photograph erotic, though I think almost everyone would find it too jarring, too unpleasant and too unattractive, to serve erotic ends. It certainly raises real issues about the exploitation of Shields as a child. I'm not sure why you think Richard Prince -- who merely rephotographed and reframed an existing image -- has some special moral culpability here, compared (say) to the original exploiters: Shields' mother, photographer Gary Gross, and Playboy

The work has been shown recently in New York, without attracting major controversy, where it gave the title to the 2007 retrospective of Prince's work at the Guggenheim Museum.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/sep/30/brooke-shields-naked-tate-modern

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/10/02/facebook-fiend-vanessa-george-asked-to-name-her-nursery-victims-115875-21716071/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217415/Nursery-worker-Vanessa-George-internet-accomplices-plead-guilty-sexually-assaulting-young-children.html

The public mood after this will have a very low tolerance for child pornography......

called Sugar and Spice. I wonder if it was actually published back then. I know standards have changed somewhat over the years, but even in 1976 I would think the Playboy people would have thought twice before publishing this. And why her mother allowed this to happen in the first place is beyond me. Today I have little doubt she'd be arrested on a child porn charge.

Or... if it IS true (which I am curious about... source?) maybe they consider all Playboy photo shoots art? I would not be the slightest bit surprised.

Man alive... what some people won't defend.

and the 8 yr old daughter.

hm

wonder why all three of his kids are so fucked up.

yeah, what a puzzler that is.

If you see posts that explicitly support or champion child pornography in this thread, you're going to have to point them out for those of us in the cheap seats.

"explicitly support or champion child pornography" :eyes:

I said people were defending this stuff as art... no idea where you're getting the inspiration for your idiotic hyperbole.

Let me guess: Ridiculous stereotyping is only bad when other people do it. Not when you do it.

Glad you could clear that up for us "art snobs!" :hi:

Better?

So, can you provide those post numbers now, or are we going to start a book club?

and espouses the views of many, including myself. We are a society drenched in grasping exploitation.

High art, indeed!

:rofl:

something called "Sugar and Spice" featuring photos of nude young girls. No wonder Polanski was taking topless and nude-in-the-jacuzzi photos of a 13-year-old. Apparently no one was raising much of a stink about child porn back then.

So very, very revealing. *sigh*

It's been said in other threads though.

Most impressive!

I'm really sorry that you've missed those posts... but I honestly couldn't care less whether or not you believe me.

Have a great day! :hi:

Your original comment sure had the strong implication that you were talking about the "art snobs" in the very same thread you were posting.

Is that so unreasonable?

my deepest apologies for not meeting your rigorous posting standards.

Personally, I'm human. I can--and do--make mistakes (broad brush, stereotypes, strawman, etc.) when I discuss a topic that's very emotional for me. Sure, I try not to, but I also try not to become ridiculously defensive when someone points out such a mistake.

But hey, enjoy your infallibility, I guess. :shrug: Must be nice.

Defensive? I'm annoyed, genius. Your tone conveys more than you know, apparently.

I'd imagine that it's also annoying to lack the ability to respond to a reasonable request for specificity without employing personal attacks.

I remember the "good old days" of being groped by complete strangers and being told to "be nice to the man".

It seems there was even a mini-explosion of acceptance during the BS younger years, but then gradually people started to wake up.

Victims of pedophiles often suffered just as much as adult rape victims, in terms of the way they were treated by society.

& it was a book of photos of *women*, not children, except for the shields photo.

"Sugar and Spice, Surprising and Sensuous Images of Women"

NEWTON, HELMUT, GROSS, GARRY ETC. PLAYBOY. Sugar and Spice. (Brooke Shields)
Playboy Press, 1976. 1976, 1st Edition. Hardcover. First edition. Hardcover, color photographs, dustjacket. Fine text with no flaws at all. Dj is very fresh, not clipped, very little rubbing to extremities, a couple of tiny edge-nicks. No serious tears, no chips. A stunning copy of this uncommon book. 13 photographers represented, each with 6 to 8 pp. of photos of nude women. Some photo essays (woman/woman, black man/white woman), etc. Includes Gross' young Brooke Shields photos. Fine/Nearly Fine. /Dust Jacket Included.

http://www.antiqbook.com/boox/dub/776158.shtml

http://www.amazon.com/Sugar-Spice-Surprising-Sensuous-Images/dp/0872234339

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8270941.stm

There is no way that a photo of a child taken for Playboy can be allowed to hang in a London gallery.
The authorites need to be seen to be taking child pornography and abuse seriously...The case that is in the headlines is so nasty
that they couldn't give details of the photos taken on the 10 O'Clock news last night.

division of Playboy Magazine. The pictures were not in the magazine, but were published by the parent company. See the Guardian article - Post #70.

photo also appeared in something called Little Women.

pictures of women, not kids, save for the shields picture.

& you didn't know it was a book until i bothered to track it down.

(except for the shields photo) by some moderately big names, including helmut newton.

http://www.amazon.com/Sugar-Spice-Surprising-Sensuous-Images/dp/0872234339

http://www.goodreads.com/work/editions/570839

Three people were in court yesterday and the most revolting child pornography charges....They most likely knew this story was about to break when they took it down...