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 think it was taken to titillate, sugar n spice and published by playboy sends a strong message. as does the photo, imo.

but for thsoe people who last night were too scared to click etc, i just wanted to say it wasn't a pornographic image in the modern sense, of genitals and whatnot.

it was deffo a dodgy image then, though, not art, and bears no scrutiny on that basis. although i have some sympathy with bof's point that as part of a larger exhibition, indeed as part fo a greater body of work by the artist, it may have been of some merit. but, y'know, if brooke shields doesn't want it shown, then it shouldn't be. cos she was ten at the time... man, it's so grim that a judge didn't see that.

nasty.

I think I'm a similar age to Brooke Shields (she's perhaps a year or two younger) and I remember the photos in the paper (probably the Daily Mail) at the time when she was over in the UK I think to promote her film back in 1980/81. I remember seeing some stills from Pretty Baby and that there was some sort of furore about it all because she was so young.

I remember distinctly seeing a photograph of her semi-naked reclining on a chaise and I remember it causing me quite a jolt as I tried to process a photograph of someone who was basically a child like me, posing like an adult in a "grown-up" ie. sexually provocative way. I was quite disturbed by it because it didn't feel right to me. I also remember some cheesy newspaper photograph of her holding a rose and the blurb said something along the lines of "I don't wear lots of make-up, just a dash of mascara and a bit of lip gloss". She was like an alien creature to me - a child allowed to be grown-up and play those grown-up games.

It's funny revisiting this as a grown-up with a daughter of my own. I expected the Tate photo to be that one (sepia-toned I think)so was shocked to see that image linked above. It is entirely designed to arouse and titillate - the fact that she's oiled up and staring brazenly into the camera - it's an invitation plain and simple isn't it?

Shocking. Yeah YANBU.

Flippin heck wish I hadn't clicked on the link. Terrible stuff. Poor Brooke.

I think it is very clearly and unequivocably a pornographic photograph - if you styled an adult in the same way and took the same photograph no-one would question that it was pornographic. I'm sorry I looked at it now and it makes me sad for Brooke, I'm too young to have known about the beginnings of her career. I'm sorry she seems to have been so exploited by her mother.

I feel sad for her that it has all resurfaced now too. Some of the cynical comments some people have made about her using it to promote her career must be very upsetting.

What Richard Dorment in theTelegraph says

I saw pretty baby actually and have watched Brooke Sheilds as a contemporary.

It is absoloutely obvious that she was sold for everything she could get by her parents and that whilst their was moral indignation at her treatemnt at the time it was treated as uptight prissiness rather than concern for the well being of a child.The line was pretty much spun that only Mary Whitehouse types would have a problem with this.

The role she had in pretty baby was all about her virginity being sold and her being seduced into prostituition. Soft porn crap.

The men who exploited her should be ashamed but her mother and father were the ones who could and should have said no but didn't.

Stunningly beautiful woman . I have always felt very sorry for her.

Fantastic biting commentary on the piece as Art underneath that article actually, thanks BonsoirAnna.

There is a problem with just recycling other work and recontaxtualising it as art, as the writer points out. While I believe it does work as art in the show in the Tate- what happens if/when it is reprinted and sold on? Then it is recontextualised AGAIN and retains the same grubbiness the artist is supposed to lampoon.

How old was she in 1981 then? 16? God. The more I read about her the more I feel for her. That she sued Gary Gross in 1981 and that she lost even though she cried in court that the photos embarrassed her. What a terrible time she's had

Definitely, YANBU, her parents are very, very irresponsible.

I just clicked the link without reading the thread and now wish I hadn't. It is a vile picture. It is not art, it's disturbing!

I think her mother must have been crazy to have let her pose like that, however the fact they later tried to buy the negatives and rights to the picture show that perhaps her mother wasn't full aware of what the photos would be when she gave her consent.

Photos like that should never be taken, there is no need - and it's definitely not art! YUK!

yowsa, the comment underneath that richard dorment article is a real kick in the head for richard prince. very interesting to have that point of view, imo.

It is disturbing image and certainly thought provoking. The furore around it is quite ironic when every highstreet stocks make-up and ?sexy? clothing aimed at children even younger than this and this is seen as acceptable (not on mumsnet though ? see other aibu threads).

I feel very sorry for Brook and her wishes regarding the images really should be respected.

Artists are often shit at describing their work- that's why they work in imagery. I didn't say it was Good Art either. I actually agree with the critic in the comments section in the Telegraph.

I just think that imagining that the piece has been put in the Tate to glorify the sexualization of underage girls and get wanked over by men in dirty macs is a bit unsophisticated. If radical feminism has to automatically intersect with Outraged Of Tunbridge Wells when it comes to sexual depictions in art, insisting they are all pornographic etc without engaging with issues of commentary and according people some level of intellectual insight, then it is occupying shaky territory when it comes to women's liberation. The conservatives who condemn this art as depravity don't tend to be huge advocates of women having any sexual agency or control whatsoever.

Whatever anybody thinks about whether the picture is or can be displayed as art, how can we display it in the Tate and expect to be able to successfully prosecute people for privately downloading similar pictures?

I'm in two minds about this:

The original photo, yes, is disgusting - child soft porn.

The photo of the photo as art - not disgusting maybe, but uncomfortable and provocative. I feel like it's raised questions about the way adults see and portray children and childhood; Hollywood's sexualisation and commodification of child stars; how mothers can pimp their daughters for fame and money. I agree with BitofFun that the photo-as-art isn't glorifying the sexualisation of children, but it's a very difficult photo to look at.

I feel so sorry for her. Poor girl. How awful that her mother wouldn't protect her from this stuff. I bet she will do a better job with her own daughters.

I thought you mentioned it as a pornographic show etc upthread? Still, never mind, as we know, we are unlikely to see eye to eye on this insofar as is it porn etc. when it is displayed in an exhibition in this way. I think we can at least agree that child porn is wrong, so I'll leave you to your thread to argue it the way you want to. I still think that getting in bed with the Moral Majority is a tactical error on your part though.

Bitoffun - playing the 'getting in bed with the moral majority is a tactical error' card is rather snide and desperate sounding. Dittany and you have both made some good points and intelligent, reasoned arguments - you are perfectly entitled to disagree but it is not great to try and undermine her in that patronising way.

Ah, my day is complete after earning some dripping sarcasm from you, Dittany! Peace and love.