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.

Dittany, I was just replying in an honest way to your questions, but I find your tone a bit too aggressive for my liking. So there's no point in replying.

I'm not making excuses! I'm telling you the thoughts that crossed MY mind when seeing the photograph and hearing about the story. Of course it's emotive and will get you going and angry, that's part of what this kind of artist does, it's all about getting a strong reaction. So I'm trying to see the point of this piece, not making excuses for Prince.

My point was: a lot of the people that are up in arms about paedophilia will still get their daughters playboy outfits or the latest single by the Pussycat dolls. We object the commentary about sexualization of women in art but have no problem with Gok taking women's clothes off to "empower" them. I want to remain dressed thank you! We (used to) go to burlesque which is also all about titillation again finding it all very "empowering" again.(When I say "we" I do mean it broadly as women, I don't imply you or me actually do the above mind you)

Besides, art is not just what is described in the catalogue, it's also about how the audience perceives it and what other experiences or images you have. For example, did you know that Lewis Carrol of Alice and Wonderland was also a photographer and some of his pictures were of naked young girls? It was fashionable artistically at the time, as children were meant to portray purity, but doesn't it strike you as a bit shocking too?

"Sexualising women and girls and treating them like shit sells. "

yes, it does, and always has. but perhaps placing it in the context of a gallery provides the social commentary? i dunno, dittany, i think you are being too aggressive here. you don't really listen, you just rebut.

righto, dittany. i kinda wasn't talking about that one instance, but sure, she did get that bit wrong. did you see what 'spiritual curator' wrote at the bottom of the telegraph piece?

yeah, lets.

basically it seemed to be a curator absolutely tearing prince to shreds for being a cynical talentless prick. i think you'd like it.

in answer to your next question... gross, of course.

The intentions of Prince does not have to be what I read in this ok? It's not all literal, and often artists talk the talk. All art can be read in different ways that could even contradict the creator's point: that's why there's a difference between art and design, it really doesn't have to be what it says on the tin. I don't mean that Prince is actually a feminist artist that reveals to us that this is porn, but I have every right to read it this way and don't really need to get permission from the artist not the curator to reach my conclusions. If you see it as plain child porn meant to arouse the paedos, then you're clearly only seeing the original picture and no amount of debate can change your mind.
This exhibition was originally called "Sold Out"until Hirst objected. Do you see at all the relation of the title and this work now?

Dittany, I don't believe for a minute that he chose this picture because he is turned on by it. You say "we know it", because you have come to this conclusion. Well, there's more to what a fine art photographer says and why he chooses to do it. His work is all about re-photographing existing photographs and taking everything out of their original context. This is not exactly new, re-contextualizing has been prevalent in art for decades.
Frankly, I don't care about the paedos, I care about her and her desire to withdraw that photograph. But I'm also sick of the obsession with paedos, it's all very daily mail to me I'm afraid.
And no, I don't think the curators were criticizing the artists, they were probably being ironic, only it was too close to the bone for Hirst.

I suppose part of the issue for me is the idea that paedophiles form some group wholly separate from the rest of the population. My concern is that the sexualisation of children creates/encourages more people to develop a sexual interest in children. Or it may encourage people to view their sexual interests as more acceptable or more integrated into their personality, and therefore more likely to act upon them.

I am actually quite astonished that anyone on a parenting site would be arguing that it is acceptable to display sexualised images of a 10 year old.

I am not sure that this has a connection to feminism. Why should it be feminists that have primary responsibility for arguing against the sexualisation of children? Is it because Brooke Shields is female?

Would this picture be deemed more pornographic if a 10 year old, oiled boy was stood naked and wearing make up in a bathtub?

"For anybody who hasn't entirely switched their brain off."

is that from 'how to win friends and influence people'?

to OP - get reading the DM more. You will find your home there

Honesr AnyFucker, how hard is it not just to take the piss and yank these nobs chains?? MN is the natural home of MN. I know they will hate me for it (but have always been an outsider) they (perhaos) turned doen the DM gig for fear of upsetting the liberal intelegiensia' without realising the intelegensia had already jumped ship (if unconscioulsy) many moons and shipwreaks ago...

beep ... beep...

calling... daftpunk...the only one without seared party lines...

oops, many typos having taken too much of teh boozew

What I have assessed from thi s is that I thgib AF is the same poster as DP. My apols - on refelction of a few secs, I see definite differences. I am a lazy drunken cow.

I am sure ther ewas a 2nd typo, but it's gone..I am a sinful fellady.

Ditanny, your comment that "I don't want people talking about paedophilia" would be offensive if it wasn't so naive. Therefore I bid you farewell and wish you lots of lovely ranting for the rest of your evening.

I think if you replaced child Brooke with adult Brooke in the same pose no-one would argue about whether it was pornography or not. It is a clearly pornographic photograph, child pornography is not acceptable in our society.

It may well also be art just like it may also be art if it were adult Brooke in the picture. Adult pornography is not illegal, child pornography is. If it were adult Brooke i would find it distasteful whether or not it was displayed as art or not because it is a very overtly sexual pose, as it is child Brooke I find it completely unacceptable.

It should not be displayed, it actually does not matter whether it has any value as an artwork or conversation topic - we have to think about the effect of displaying this picture in the most important art gallery in our capital city.

I think the artist's comments about his intention support of the removal of this picture. I find it unacceptable to display it. That would send a message that taking pornographic pictures, looking at pornographic pictures and copying other people's pornographic pictures of children is acceptable under the headings 'art' and 'controversy'. Not a very good message to send.

Curiosity I agree with you. It's a horrid picture and that's why I don't actually object to it being removed. My point earlier is that I mind more her mum pimping her out than Prince re-photographing it. I guess for me that work demonstrated what was wrong with the photoshoot in the first place. Things that get my blood boiling are how I can get into DHSmith or quite a few supermarkets and face naked women, legs akimbo, in magazines like Nuts or the like. Or how Page 3 is still acceptable.