Dubai Debt Issues Push Stocks Down
GMA: Adam Lambert, No; Chris Brown, Yes
Report: Wife Scratched Tiger Woods' Face, Chased His SUV; Update: Police Unable To Interview Couple Today
Family Gets Early Christmas Gift From Ellen DeGeneres
Street Artist Proposes on Subway Signage
Across the pond Brooke Shields is causing a commotion at the hoity-toity Tate Modern. The nude photograph of the actress at age 10 was to be part of a new salacious exhibit, which of course was met by the sighs of both children's advocates and religious groups, according to the Daily News. One outraged critic told them, "Putting a sign on the door like that means every pedophile in the land will head straight to that room." The Man agreed, and it's being reported that officers from the obscene publications unit of the Metropolitan police have taken it down. The photograph hung in the Guggenheim just two years ago, and features a "nude ten-year-old Brooke Shields, heavily made-up, standing in a bath." It actually is rather disturbing.
Old Brooke Shields Photo Still Controversial
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookComments (31) [rss]
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
Tips
Newsmap
Contribute
Latest Tip:
In regards to your article: http://gothamist.com/2009/11/28/lawsuit_dirty_st_vincents_equipment.php
[more]
I'd say even the link is inappropriate
not cool.
NSFW?
Yeh, get rid of the link.
if art is supposed to get a reaction.. then the goal is achieved.
does brooke shields mind that this photo is still making its rounds? im sure i would
In view of the Polanski case, it seems high end child porn was very fashionable in the late 1970's.
It was like a Sexual Revolution hippie thing. Little kids were supposed to be mature enough to consent to anyone's fantasies and that would make them feel all grown up. Brooke did have a relationship with Michael Jackson so obviously, she was scarred for life...
see also: daniel cohn-bendit
Yup, this was hung in a discrete corner by the bathrooms at the Gug. And Yup, its still disturbing.
if you don't like the link, don't click. I'm not an advocate, but who cares if it's there?
That picture is creepy. Plus I just don't get it - it doesn't seem slutty enough to appeal to a pedophile (though, not being one myself, perhaps I am underestimating their lust for the kiddies), but it's not particularly artsy either - speaking as someone who dated an artsy photographer for quite some time. It kind of reminds me of a Playboy shoot, only with a 10-year-old.
One, I'm not going to click on the link - all I know is that it's subject is a nude 10 year old. That's illegal in this country and in Briton, I'm revolted by it, and I think anyone hosting it should have criminal charges files against them.
Two, are you so ignorant? "It kind of reminds me of a Playboy shoot" - and will you idiotically state that no one has ever jerked off to a Playboy photo? Might not be your brand of lube but someone's having a grand old time with one hand with an image of a ten-year-old child.
The image itself is an issue, but the larger problem is that if this is 'art' and it's hanging in a museum, it's encouraging more of the same and giving validity to images of naked children as art. It's a mindset of "I don't condone it but won't prohibit it."
Um, lesson in completely and utterly missing the point? No, I've definitely never heard of ANYONE jerking off to Playboy. My point is that it succeeds neither as porny nor as artsy, from my view. I'm sure pedophiles love it - my point being that the idiot "artist" who took it was not really an artist at all, and I completely fail to see what he was trying to accomplish "artistically".
Gross is definately guilding the lilly here. He couldn't be more obvious about what he is trying to accomplish with the make up, steaming bath tub and glare of flash bulb. I mean, Christ, he even literally "corners" the subject of his photo into the far right of the tub and angles the shot down at her as if to suggest that the child is being cornered by the viewer, thereby making us all pedofiles just for looking at it.
i wonder what justice stewart would think of that picture.
The Post credits the photographer as "Gary Cross".
The Saatchi page cites him as "Gary Gross".
Which is correct? lol...
I'm an artist and most of my work involves the figure. Thus, I've devoted some thought to this kind of issue and have concluded that there was a time in history, Renaissance in particular (ie.Donatello's David), where children are posed in nude or even sexually suggestive ways there were intereprested though the eyes of people who lived in a very different time and culture.
Gary Gross's is innapropriate for our time and culture. He produced the work knowing this is so and I would go so far as to say that it exploits the child's image for his own financial and professional gain by engineering an image that is intended to stir controversy. Frankly, it's a visual cheap one-liner. Controversy is easy, being smart isn't and this work is just crap to begin with.
………………….._,,-~’’’¯¯¯’’~-,,
………………..,-‘’ ; ; ;_,,---,,_ ; ;’’-,…………………………….._,,,---,,_
……………….,’ ; ; ;,-‘ , , , , , ‘-, ; ;’-,,,,---~~’’’’’’~--,,,_…..,,-~’’ ; ; ; ;__;’-,
……………….| ; ; ;,’ , , , _,,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ¯’’~’-,,_ ,,-~’’ , , ‘, ;’,
……………….’, ; ; ‘-, ,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-, , , , , ,’ ; |
…………………’, ; ;,’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-, , ,-‘ ;,-‘
………………….,’-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-‘ ;,,-‘
………………..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;__ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,’
………………,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘’¯: : ’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; _ ; ; ; ; ;’,
……………..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;| : : : : : :| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘’¯: ¯’’-, ; ; ;’,
…………….,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,_: : _,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | : : : : : :| ; ; ; |
……………,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ¯¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-,,_ : :,-‘ ; ; ; ;|
…………..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,,-~’’ , , , , ,,,-~~-, , , , _ ; ; ;¯¯ ; ; ; ; ;|
..…………,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’ , , , , , , ,( : : : : :) , , , ,’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|
……….,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’, , , , , , , , ,’~---~’’ , , , , , ,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,
…….,-‘’ ; _, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘’~-,,,,--~~’’’¯’’’~-,,_ , ,_,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,
….,-‘’-~’’,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | ; ; | . . . . . . ,’; ,’’¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,_ ; ‘-,
……….,’ ; ;,-, ; ;, ; ; ;, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ; ;’, . . . . .,’ ;,’ ; ; ; ;, ; ; ;,’-, ; ;,’ ‘’~--‘’’
………,’-~’ ,-‘-~’’ ‘, ,-‘ ‘, ,,- ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ; ; ‘~-,,,-‘’ ; ,’ ; ; ; ; ‘, ;,-‘’ ; ‘, ,-‘,
……….,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ‘’ ; ; ;’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘’-,,_ ; ; ; _,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ;’-‘’ ; ; ; ‘’ ; ;’-,
……..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;¯¯’’¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-,
……,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,
Thank you.
hahaha
awesome!
I'm more confused by the exhibition than the photo. Sure, the picture is creepy, but the original is not on display. It's apparently an artists' picture of a picture of the original. On that basis alone, the Tate should have binned it.
If I remember correctly, Brooke Shields' mother was a major drunk.
"This exhibition brings together 80 photographs, most of which are very well-known, that have provoked legal proceedings or controversy." I believe that is the reason the image was included in the show. I didn't see a single reference to Robert Mapplethorpe. Why is that? Are bullwhips up people's rectum not controversial anymore?
The work is actually an appropriated image by Richard Prince, entitled "Spiritual America."
I get the 'art part', sort of; as said previously, this art has been around since the beginning of time. How old was Eve? That was life as it was 'then' this is now. Fundamentally I never did understand how a mother could allow/encourage her daughter to make that film. Yes, I have children and a grown daughter. I hope Brooke has big enough shoulders to carry the attention and or criticism from a period of her life that she obviously had no control over. Pray the film was truly fiction.
Basic rule: Kids are off limits. No discussion, no artsy crap, no interpretation required. Not bad taste, not artistic interpretation, purely off limits. 'Nuff said.
you didnt need to hyperlink it - could have said the google terms to give the result and you needed to put a [NSFW] in large blinking colors.
So has anyone heard from Shields on this expo?
ITT pedos who like sexy little gurlz say that little gurlz aren't sexxy. 1
The human form is not gross. It is the most advanced technology and most amazing space-ship there is. Our society creates agreements, imposes laws. We agree to remain off-limits to children under the age of 18. Not because it's right or wrong at age 18 all of a sudden- as if a child or adult of 17.99 becomes someone else at 18. But because we have agreed or have been imposed upon by the law. Morality is a blur, but the law can be precise. Leave morality out of it, and maintain your agreements with the law. The human form at any stage is the most beautiful form created, the most interesting to watch, the greatest inspiration. Do not then give yourself permission to or take away protection from those who need extra care just because they are older than the age of 18....
"We agree to remain off-limits to children under the age of 18."
17 in New York, actually. 16 in over 30 states.
So yeah, no one thinks that 18 is a magic number.