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.

och, dittany. that's not what she's saying...

I expect this has already been said but I have no time to read the last 3 pages of this thread - Richard Prince is a class 1 moron.
"media" is the PLURAL of "medium". Nothing to do with Medea, or any of the other bollocks. It is a grouping of the different forms of communication "mediums", hence it is called mediA.

Cretin.

This artist didn't take the picture did he. The orignial was for a Playboy publication. I think his appropration of it was a comment on that

Shields was apparetly paid $450 in 1974 to model for "fashion photographer Garry Gross for a Playboyt publication called Sugar and Soice. It was...designed...to reveal the not-so-latent sexuality of the prepubesscent child".

Prince rephotograpned the print, "renaming it Spiritual America (after a 1923 picture by Albert Stieglitz of a gelded horse's midriff and genitals)".

Clearly, apart from a dittany, nobody else can have an opinion on this

if he came right out and said, 'phwor, jailbait' you might have a point Dittany. In truth, it's arty farty and ambiguous - it's all the in the eye of the beholder. Just as the judge said all those years ago.

Shield's career was based on her playing with and exploiting a Lolita persona. She is not a victim of sexual abuse. No child was hurt in the taking of this photo.

I remember a US artist Sally Mann who photographed her own children as nudes, beautiful B&W photography, very personal, natural scenes of life in her home. She was absolutely torn apart by critics and had exhibitions and photography banned if I remember rightly, with accusations/ assimilations to child p orn.

Interesting that "back then" this kind of image wasn't perceived as worrying. Just awful for BS to be exploited in this way. That quote about "perceiving the fiction her photograph imagined"..well I've never heard a sexual fantasy involving a child called that before .

Well parents are arrested if a photo tech gets hot and sticky developing bathtime photos. Right choice there, Officer

I do get to claim it. Look, I just did it again!

Want to what? Say that no children were harmed in the taking of the photo? That it is dubious but isn't child abuse?

I dunno. Maybe I'm just a crazy deluded fool.

The opinions of the judge in the original case are irrelevant to what the police have done at the exhibition. The judge is commenting on US laws. The photos have since been exhibited in the US without police involvement.

This is a British exhibition with British police who are trying to apply British laws. They have stepped in because they are experts in matters of child pornography and they consider this photo to be pornographic.

Many people in Britain do consider the combination of frontal yet arched standing pose, direct eye contact from a photographed female nude, heavy makeup, nudity, and an oiled body to be pornographic. Some of the elements individually do not constitute pornography, but collectively they do. They are collectively strong symbols of sexualisation in our society; it is not about the individual eye of the beholder at all.

Are there circumstances where a photo of an oiled child's body is not meant to imply sexualisation? Is there anybody on MN who would oil and put make up on their 10 year old child before photographing them in a bath for a Playboy publication, and expect it to not be considered sexually abusive by social services and the police?

I am jsut interested in whether those arguing about this photo having a place in "art" would feel happy with their own daughters being used in such an "artful" way. I wouldnt.

Also - the points that this is an old picture. Does that mean that there is a statute on how long an abusive picture can be considered abusive for? So if a peadophile looks at images of abused children from decades or centuries ago then its acceptable?

Again not where i come from.

Milly, no one is asserting it isn't supposed to 'imply' sexuallsation. That's not the same as it being sexy to everyone (or even the majority of people) who see it. Part of it is to be uncomfortable at its implications. Just like - I dunno - PissChrist.

If a paedophile wants to look at pics of children, even children in underware, he can pick up a fashion catalogue and get his rocks off. Should we ban anything that might appeal to a devient sexuality? This is not pornography. It is not child abuse.

It is erotic and that makes many people uncomfortable. It makes me uncomfortable. But it clearly is not an abusive picture, unless you consider viewers offense as abuse.

crap monkey trews. abuse is when an image of a sexual nature is taken of someone unable to consent fully to its being taken once fully aware of the long term potential consequences of its existence. A ten year old girl cannot possibly have enough awareness of the situation to fully consent to publically being viewed in such a sexual manner and brooke shields has had to then cope with the consequences for her entire life. Which is abuse at its worst.

i knew i shouldnt have done it. i knew i shouldtn have. so why did i do it?

that is child pronography.... pure and simple.

i feel traumatised.

how could anyone allow theire dd to be in such a place? like that? and then allow pics to be taken?

monkeytrews, i wouldnt want my dd modeling underwear either.

It's not abuse or child pornography. If it was, someone would have been arrested rather than the picture taken down to stop the tumescence of any passing paedophile. Yipee, the world is a safer place.

If it was, pictures of all kids half naked dressed up in mammy's lipstick and high heels would be pornography and abuse.

So you feel traumatised Stitch. Ring the police. Make a complaint.

Ho could anybody? Sheild's parents - are they not 'somebody'. They also allowed her to do Pretty Baby. Jodie Fosters parebts allowed her to do Taxi Driver. Were these abuse too? Get these people locked up with Ian Hunty sharpish.