Advanced search

Police close Tate exhibit featuring a photo of an underage Brooke Shields.

(27 Posts)
StewieGriffinsMom Thu 01-Oct-09 14:18:38

Message withdrawn

ThePrettiestStar Thu 01-Oct-09 15:09:05

Can't get link to work?

StewieGriffinsMom Thu 01-Oct-09 15:13:57

Message withdrawn

EightiesChick Thu 01-Oct-09 17:04:30

I'm annoyed at the 'Censorship is evil, police have no place in an art gallery' comments being made on the Guardian and suchlike. It's not as if the police are going to tour art galleries across the country taking out nude pictures as they go. This is a very, very specific case in which something being exhibited as art is also, unfortunately, liable to be considered child porn. That trumps the 'do't tamper with art' consideration for thr police, and quite rightly. If any further justification was needed Shields herself did not consent to the photo being taken; her mother did that (???angry) and has tried to stop it being made public. Why people can't respect her wishes and dignity I don't know but it's very disappointing. The right decision has been made.

SomeGuy Fri 02-Oct-09 03:11:44

There are quite a lot of dubious books like the one this image originates from. 'Arty' shots of nude teens are sold on Amazon.

I'm not sure really what the status of this image is, but there are numerous copies of it all over the internet, and you can still buy the book on amazon.

As for whether it's art - if it had been a 200 year old painting then it would be, the medium has changed but other than it seems comparable.

It's certainly rather an ambiguous image, and not without merit, as for whether it needs to be banned, I can't see it myself.

Monkeytrews Fri 02-Oct-09 18:04:13

Are they going to ban the Blue Lagoon too?

MillyR Fri 02-Oct-09 21:13:46

I think it should be removed from the gallery. She isn't a teen like in the Blue Lagoon. She is ten, and is clearly sexualised in the photo. There have been cases where I do not agree with censorship. There is nothing wrong with art photos where the child is just naked; she is not just naked in the photo.

Monkeytrews Fri 02-Oct-09 22:23:17

Does anyone have a link to said print? Is it just that it possiby could be arousing or that is is pornographic? FFS, one is in the eye of the beholder - you cannot legislate on that.

SomeGuy Fri 02-Oct-09 23:21:15

Message withdrawn

alwayslookingforanswers Fri 02-Oct-09 23:25:37

shock - just clicked on SomeGuy's link

alwayslookingforanswers Fri 02-Oct-09 23:26:10

Monkey - look at the link - I (personally) don't think there's any doubt.

SomeGuy Fri 02-Oct-09 23:30:27

How can it be arousing? She is sexually immature and plainly a child.

OurLadyOfPerpetualSupper Fri 02-Oct-09 23:34:57

To anyone who hasn't yet clicked on SG's link: I felt as if the police might come knocking at my door after viewing it, and I know other MNers have too.
Would really rather not have seen it.
She is made up to look ten years older, posing naked and oiled in a bathtub.

dittany Fri 02-Oct-09 23:38:38

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Monkeytrews Sat 03-Oct-09 08:05:04

I guess it would only be arousing to a paedophile - or another 10 year old?

What was the context of the show? Was it a parody?

Tombliboobs Sat 03-Oct-09 08:25:09

I completely agree with eighties chick. Art should not be exempt from the law and the right decision has been made.

Monkeytrews Sat 03-Oct-09 16:21:52

no, but it should be provocative.

It's inappropriate, but maybe that is the point the picture is making? It's been a success if so.

LeninGrad Sat 03-Oct-09 19:47:23

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

dittany Sat 03-Oct-09 21:52:28

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

musicposy Sun 04-Oct-09 00:21:56

I clicked on the link yesterday and I really wished I hadn't, I found it quite upsetting - it looked so much like an adult soft porn shot but with a child. I had a bad night last night thinking about it - my daughter is 10 and still so much a child - how could anyone do that? Brooke's mother expoited her child for money. There is absolutely nothing you could offer me that would allow me to let my daughter be photographed like this, not in a million years. Absolute fodder for paedophiles - I would question the photographer taking it too.

I think the Tate has made the right decision, whatever the initial reasons for showing the picture. I would hope we live in more enlightened times than when this was taken. sad

Tortington Sun 04-Oct-09 00:43:16

i searched for and found the picture.

i have no words - how was such a young girl ever allowed to be in this situation aged 10

controversy is not art

it is not clever to be controversial.

StewieGriffinsMom Sun 04-Oct-09 07:57:21

Message withdrawn

OurLadyOfPerpetualSupper Sun 04-Oct-09 08:23:57

Musicposy, the Tate haven't made any decision at all - it's the police who've demanded the removal of the photograph.

Monkeytrews Sun 04-Oct-09 17:35:13

Controversy is not art - maybe. But art is sometimes controvertial.

Tortington Sun 04-Oct-09 18:19:14

yes but maybe certain artists don't see a diffrence

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: