BetterMost, Wyoming & Brokeback Mountain Forum
The World Beyond BetterMost => The Culture Tent => Topic started by: delalluvia on October 01, 2009, 12:16:11 pm
-
LONDON – Britain's Tate Modern has temporarily closed an exhibition that includes a nude image of a 10-year-old Brooke Shields, following a visit from a London police unit that deals with obscene publications.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091001/ap_en_ot/eu_britain_exhibit_shut_down
-
I'm *kind* of interested to see the photo... I mean its in a collection called "Spiritual America"? I wonder what sort of shot it is?
-
Isn't that the shot from "Pretty Baby"? It's been around forever!
-
I don' think so. (I'e now seen it btw.. its ..umm.. interesting)
I hadn't heard of pretty baby until yesterday but I beleive the photo was shot when she was ten and pretty baby at 12.
-
I don' think so. (I'e now seen it btw.. its ..umm.. interesting)
I hadn't heard of pretty baby until yesterday but I beleive the photo was shot when she was ten and pretty baby at 12.
Do you think it's worth shutting down the exhibit?
-
Huh. Turns out this photo is also on exhibit in the Astrup-Fearnley Museum of Modern Art in Oslo. And the director there claims they've never had negative reactions, and that they beleived the UK hoopla to be a PR stunt on TAte Modern's part! According to this guy the photo is the artist Richard Prince's "main oevre". ::)
It supposedly depicts an "extremely complicated image of a nude girl looking like a boy made-up like a woman."
The link to the full article is here, for anyone who reads Norwegian, and the photo in question (which supposdedly is worth millions of dollars according to the article) can also be seen in the background.
http://www.kjendis.no/2009/10/02/kjendis/kunst/utenriks/brooke_shields/tate_modern/8394636/
Personally I think it looks suggestive and not in a subtle way; - it looks like a peadophile's dream come true. Yuck. Is this art? Maybe Roman Polanski should be asked to opine on the matter. >:(
-
Can hardly wait till they start complaining about the naked baby Jesus pictures and the cherubs.
Going to have to repaint that pornographic ceiling in the Sistine Chapel.
-
Oh come on, Clyde, have you seen the photo?
I mean, I don't disagree with your right to think it's art and perfectly OK displayed in the public space. But the baby Jesus isn't normally pictured in a suggestive pose with equally suggestive props, sporting a "come hither" look and covered in gleaming baby oil.
-
Going to have to repaint that pornographic ceiling in the Sistine Chapel.
Actually, didn't some of the great Renaissance painters get complaints from their pious patrons and have to put clothes - or at least well positioned drapery or shrubbery on or near some of their subjects?
-
With this picture and "Pretty Baby" in mind, I am not overly impressed with Brooke Shield's mother's care for her child not the discretion displayed in the management of her minor daughter's carreer.
-
Actually, didn't some of the great Renaissance painters get complaints from their pious patrons and have to put clothes - or at least well positioned drapery or shrubbery on or near some of their subjects?
No need to go back to the Renaissance - remember when Ashcroft had them cover up the boobs of the Justitia statue he gave speeches in front of? :laugh:
The difference, to me, is that the nude human form in itself is not at all offensive. And sexually explicit nudes aren't offensive as a general rule either, though in some situations they may be. However, IMO displaying children in overt sexual poses crosses the line. And for me personally the line has been crossed with that Brooke Shields photo.
-
Oh come on, Clyde, have you seen the photo?
I mean, I don't disagree with your right to think it's art and perfectly OK displayed in the public space. But the baby Jesus isn't normally pictured in a suggestive pose with equally suggestive props, sporting a "come hither" look and covered in gleaming baby oil.
I saw it. To me it looks weird, like they photoshopped her head onto a young boy's body.
I'm afraid those baby beauty pageants for 5 and 6 year olds strike me as more sexually suggestive than that.
-
No need to go back to the Renaissance - remember when Ashcroft had them cover up the boobs of the Justitia statue he gave speeches in front of? :laugh:
The difference, to me, is that the nude human form in itself is not at all offensive. And sexually explicit nudes aren't offensive as a general rule either, though in some situations they may be. However, IMO displaying children in overt sexual poses crosses the line. And for me personally the line has been crossed with that Brooke Shields photo.
It wasn't too long ago when the naked human form was considered pornographic. I thought that was resolved, already.
And, for me, naked children hold even less potential to be pornographic.
I have some friends who's two year old son is naked in a lot of pictures because they still have trouble getting him to keep his clothes on. :laugh: Of course that gives them more potential to embarrass him when he grows up and it's payback time! ;D
-
I´ve seen the photo and thought it was interesting. I felt slightly provoked, but in a good way. It´s in the eye of the beholder, as always.
-
No need to go back to the Renaissance - remember when Ashcroft had them cover up the boobs of the Justitia statue he gave speeches in front of? laugh
Heh. Yeah, forgot about that. [shakes head]
It wasn't too long ago when the naked human form was considered pornographic. I thought that was resolved, already.
Apparently not. There was actually some rich Arab living in Beverly Hills a decade or so ago who decided to paint his nude classic statues to look as real as possible. Done in white plain marble, they were apparently 'artistic' and 'historical'. Painted to look real, they were pornographic. He was forced to cease and desist.
Like that line from the movie re nude pictures of women "If they out of focus, they're art, if they're in focus, they're pornographic."
I might give more credence to the "it was just a naked kid picture", if she wasn't slicked down with oil, hair done up with makeup on. And no, it wasn't a Coppertone ad.
-
And, for me, naked children hold even less potential to be pornographic.
I have some friends who's two year old son is naked in a lot of pictures because they still have trouble getting him to keep his clothes on. :laugh: Of course that gives them more potential to embarrass him when he grows up and it's payback time! ;D
I agree with this (in caase it wasn't obvious).
There was some bro-ha-ha a few years back about the exhibition of a woman photographer's art - she'd taken heaps of photos of her nude kids, some of them posed, most unposed in various situations - swimming, going about the house etc. They were just kids, and they were naked. Nothing salacious, intimate for sure but mainly because it was in a famlity sitation and the kids were being - looking to be - happy normal kids doing their thing in a family setting. I thought the criticim of her photos as "potentially pornographic" was totally unwarranted.
But the Brooke Shields photo isn't a child being a child while in the nude - it's a child made up intentionally by adults to be explicitly provocative/attractive (take your pick) to adults. Complete with make-up, baby oil and a sexual attitude. A little Lolita if ever there was one. That is something entirely else than your friend's kid who won't get dressed.
I bet that this Brooke Shields pic has appeared in more than one of the "collections" found on peadophile persons computers, when the police arrest them.
The article I linked to says that Ms. Shields has tried to repurchase the rights to the photo in order to take the "art" off the market, but she's been unsuccessful. I think that's a pity.
-
But the Brooke Shields photo isn't a child being a child while in the nude - it's a child made up intentionally by adults to be explicitly provocative/attractive (take your pick) to adults. Complete with make-up, baby oil and a sexual attitude. A little Lolita if ever there was one. That is something entirely else than your friend's kid who won't get dressed.
I don´t know what the origin of the pic is, but looking at it now it doesn´t look like a Lolita pic to me. Quite the opposite. It felt like it tried to say quite the opposite. the undeveloped body standing in stark contrast with the made up, older looking face. Children today might act and look older, but they are still just kids. That´s what the pic said to me.
But perhaps that wasn´t the intention of the man who took the picture. And what often separates art from porn is the intention behind the work.
-
You're more benevolent and open-mindend than me in this, Monika. :)
When I see "art" like this, I immediately feel that the artist's message is: "Hey, everyone, look how edgy and controversial I can be! Look at me! Talk about me! Me, me, me!"
I find that tiresome, and immature. Especially when it exposes a young child in such a potentially salacious manner.
I am of course open to the possibility that I'm wrong and just not sufficiently knowledgable about interpreting photographic art. This photo made me react with immediate distaste, though, not with curiosity for its possible message - and I'll let my gut reaction stand.
-
You're more benevolent and open-mindend than me in this, Monika. :)
When I see "art" like this, I immediately feel that the artist's message is: "Hey, everyone, look how edgy and controversial I can be! Look at me! Talk about me! Me, me, me!"
I find that tiresome, and immature. Especially when it exposes a young child in such a potentially salacious manner.
I am of course open to the possibility that I'm wrong and just not sufficiently knowledgable about interpreting photographic art. This photo made me react with immediate distaste, though, not with curiosity for its possible message - and I'll let my gut reaction stand.
perfectly understandable. I fully understand if people find it offensive.
I think it´s an interesting discussion though, what exactly constitutes art.
-
Tate museum removes nude photo
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091014/ap_en_ot/eu_britain_brooke_shields_photo
-
Strange that they felt the need to replace it with anything. Especially a photo of Brooke Shields in a bikini. ??? But I suppose there are those who get positively transported by such an image.... :D
I wonder whether the folks (as in, Tate museum curators and directors, etc.) who thought it was perfectly legit to display the original would have thought the same if it was their own little daughter in the photo, and not Ms. Shields. I bet they wouldn't.
-
At this link they show the replacement photo. Pretty forgettable and hardly "spiritual" IMO.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/oct/14/brooke-shields-tate-modern