to think Brooke Shields has irresponsible parents?

[StrictlyBoogying]

Why was she allowed to be photographed and filmed in a provocative manner when she was a child? Her Mother managed her career and obviously put money before her child's welfare.

i dont know the whole story but i saw some of the picture thats been withdrawn from the gallery and i was so shocked,

YANBU

very strange thing to allow to happen

i saw the picture too, and was shocked. has she said she is ok for it to be displayed? i know she would probably not have had a choice/understood all the fuss when it was taken but i wonder what she thinks now?

I don't believe naked pictures of children have any place in a public exhibition, regardless of who the child is and whether as an adult they consent. Bathtime pics in family album is entirely different.

She won't own the photos I imagine so wouldn't have a say in it now.
I think sometimes society will not admit that young people have emerging sexuality.
I think that young people are exploited sexually.
I think society sexualises everything today hence things like only being able to find bikinis with ruching for my 4yrold recently -no simple suits available!
|I think it's a very confusing and subjective thing, but my dd at 10-absolutely not.

PeedOffWithNits - i agree these photos are inappropriate(sp?) and should not have been shown, they could never be confused with innocent bathtome photos. i would just be interested to hear what she thinks of it all now that she is an adult.

dittany in this case i do think its fair to question her mothers motives, she was, i believe 10 when the pictures were taken and her mother was her manager - i can safely say that 25 years ago my mother would not have allowed those photos to be taken of me.

I'm not sure I want to click on a .jpeg of a naked child entitled "gross." Can someone describe a bit first, please?

the photographer was a man called gary gross, does that help?

I suppose the best that can be said of it is that it's in the Tate and not an advert. It could be argued that it is inviting us to debate the sexualisation of children in the media, perhaps, rather than endorsing it. It is supposed to make us uncomfortable in this context.

In terms of what it says about the willingness of trusted adults to exploit children, it is shocking, I agree.

Erm, it's Brooke Shields, aged 10, naked in full hooker-style makeup and a very provocative pose. And it is gross.

Absolutely terrible,it does feel like a complete violation of Brooke Shields,especially as she (i think) went to court previously to try to get these photo's destroyed.

I am very glad they will not be displayed.

Thanks for the summary - didn't realise "gross" referred to the photographer, seems apt.

No clicking for me.

well, it's not gross imo. it's disturbing, and she's beautiful. it's not pornographic, the pose, but perhaps it is provocative. is it art? it was a photo for a mag called sugar and spice, so imo no. but in itself it is not pornographic so no need to panic about law breaking. there's no genitals on display, from what i recall.

i'm not sure why putting it in a gallery would have made it art, when it was patently designed as wank fodder for paedophiles in its day. no wonder she wanted it back.

Afaicr the mother signed off all rights over the re-publishing of the picture. It ended up in all sorts of grubby Barely Legalesque publications - quelle surprise.
Brooke Shields went to court, think she was mid teens, to have those rights revoked but lost as the signature was legally given by her mother.
Grim all round.

This image is the tip of the iceberg really.

"at twelve, playing a child prostitute in Pretty Baby, whose vapid sexuality and not only a complete lack of agency, but also a complete lack of desire for agency contrasted sharply with Jodie Foster?s hard-nosed and cynical child prostitute character in Taxi Driver. And twice again at fifteen, when she made the notorious ?nothing comes between me and my Calvins? jeans commercial and stared, naked again, in The Blue Lagoon³. And again at sixteen in Endless Love. She was the most naked, most exposed, most sexually explicit child ever, and to be fair to my mother, she laid the blame at the feet of Brooke?s legendarily monstrous showbiz mother/manager, Teri Shields, who bested even Joe Simpson in the awful showbiz parent contest, and his creepy salivating over the breasts of his daughter Jessica is pretty tough to take, so that?s really saying something."

buggydoo.blogspot.com/2007/05/road-to-hell-is-paved-with-brooke.html

Her mother, who sold the rights to the photos for a few hundred dollars, was not allowed to stop the images being published, the judge saying "In public, her appearance in photographs and motion pictures is based on tantalizing allure and a veiled hint of eroticism?you had a role in choosing her films. You chose Endless Love, not Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm."

But it isn't her mother who's suffering for it now, is it?! Bloody judge - could have pretty much had her up for child abuse, surely - it's almost prostituting her child, isn't it?

I thought the image that the Tate were going to display was a photograph of the original photograph, if that makes sense... I can see how an artist could take a particularly unpleasant image, like the original pic, and turn it into something that provokes thoughs beyond 'how could her mother sanction this?!'. And that makes it art. I'd still balk at looking at it too closely or for too long though, but perhaps that was the message.