Seriously, How Is This Legal?...

[ChefChiTown]

A prestigious art museum in London is under fire for their decision to display a nude photo of a 10-year-old Brooke Shields that critics and child advocates fear will be a "magnet for pedophiles."

The image, titled 'Spiritual America,' is the work of Richard Prince and shows the young actress naked from the knees up, wearing make-up and covered in oil.

http://www.popeater.com/2009/09/29/controversial-image-of-brooke-shields-then-10-displayed-in-lon/

First of all...what?

Second of all...WHAT?!?!?!

 

[jasonk282]

Wow that's fucked up, gotta be breaking some kind of child porn law there

 

[jod0565]

It is crazy, but then you remember she appeared nude at 12 in Pretty Baby.

I don't think this should be displayed anywhere.

 

[Rey C.]

Well first, I haven't seen the photo, and so I'm not defending the museum's decision. And yeah, it's possible that pedophiles might be drawn to such a photo. But nudity shouldn't be confused with pornography. I'm not a nudist or a naturist, but there are people who are. And in many cases, it's the whole family.

I remember the case a few years ago of the mother who was arrested for child pornography, after she took a roll of film to be developed and it had some pictures of her kids in the bathtub.

Especially in the U.S., people often equate nudity with sex or sexuality. And that's just strange and puritanical, IMO.

 

[DreamSparrow]

I haven't seen the picture, but it may not necessarily be pornographic in nature. Not all nudity automatically is.

I'm sure there are paedophiles who get their jollies out of pictures of naked babies in nappie/diaper adverts. Should those commercials be banned on the grounds that any underage nudity is automatically child pornography? How about families visiting nude beaches or documentaries about cultures in Africa where that kind of nudity is normal? Should all that be made illegal too?

That said, I think it's pathetic that they'd display the picture knowing full well that she doesn't want them used. Legally, they may not be doing anything wrong, but their lack of consideration for her feelings doesn't sit right with me.

 

[Galactic]

Seems.......well, it seems pretty fucked up is what it seems. Haven't seen the picture, and I don't really wish to....odd choice for the museum.......

 

[TrueTranssexual]

If she doesn't want those pictures to be posted, then it should be illegal to do so. At 10 years old you are not old enough to make a conscientious decision about being photographed naked. I don't undertand how they can get around this.

 

[24788]

No, just no

If she wants it this way then I really can't say anything then.

 

[biomech]

:wtf: The museum thinks this is a good thing to do?
Its a nude 10 year old for Christs sake; call it what you want but seriously.
This is not a smart move.

 

[ppchaser]

yes, nudes aren't necessarily pornography... but fucked up minds are fucked up minds.

i think there should be some censorship on what's displayed in public. while the photo can be harmless to the subject, the artist, and some people who view it, it may trigger some sick wanting on others.. my two cents.

 

[usmc071984]

fuckin english. did you really expect anything different?

 

[DreamSparrow]

fuckin english. did you really expect anything different?

Yeah, the "fuckin English".

Nevermind that the model is American, the artist is American... or that it's already been on display in New York.

But yeah... the English... did you really expect anything different?

 

[gunslingingbird]

So I take it that child pornography laws were a lot more lax 30 years ago? I mean, there's this, Pretty Baby, and Blue Lagoon where Brooke Shields appears naked well before being 18. Would it be fair to say that the picture was on display because, although it may not be legal to take nude pictures of a minor today, when the picture was taken it was legal to do so, and they aren't violating any laws? :dunno:

 

[Spleen]

Brooke Shields is, and always has been, a whore.

 

[Mrs Jolly]

Here is the image from the chest up. Lots of heavy make up. Probaly meant to be heavy irony or something. It is a dull artistic avenue that whatever debate it sparks is far outweighed by the damage it ignites.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/sep/30/brooke-shields-naked-tate-modern

 

[BlueBalls]

Were there complaints when this was shown in the US?

 

[gunslingingbird]

Here is the image from the chest up. Lots of heavy make up. Probaly meant to be heavy irony or something. It is a dull artistic avenue that whatever debate it sparks is far outweighed by the damage it ignites.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/sep/30/brooke-shields-naked-tate-modern

Hmm... That almost looks like a girl I saw at the Crazy Horse last week... :dunno:

 

[DJCowboy]

In Europe though, nudity isn't that big of a deal. I'm not defending putting a nude underage girl on display but like I said, nudity there isn't like what most
Americans consider nudity, which is evil and any nudity is a form of pornography to most in the U.S.

But as far as displaying an underage girl, that does seem a little messed up. I didn't read the link but did Brooke agree? I think she should at least have her say in this

 

[DOA82]

fuckin english. did you really expect anything different?

Cause fuckin americans have never done anything bad eh?

 

[lurkingdirk]

this is a tricky one. i was ready to spring to the defense of the gallery, because i'm like that. but i don't think i will. while i'm not willing to post where i got this (because the full set of pictures is there, and i'm not going to further spread them), here's some press on these pictures:

In July 1978, at the age of thirteen, Brooke Shields made front page news in Photo Magazine. The young American film prodigy was promoting the film Pretty Baby directed by Louis Malle. In the magazine, a ten-year old Brooke is shown wearing makeup, her glistening body posed naked in a bathtub. The picture comes from a series taken by Garry Gross, an advertising photographer from New York who was regularly employed by Brooke’s mother to photograph her daughter, then a model with the Ford agency. At the time, Gross was working on a project for publication entitled The Woman in the Child, in which he wanted to reveal the femininity of prepubescent girls by comparing them to adult women.

Brooke Shields posed for him both as a normal young girl and in the nude, her body heavily made up and oiled, receiving a fee of $450 from Playboy Press, Gross’s partner in the project. Her mother signed a contract giving Gross full rights to exploit the images of her daughter. The series was first published in Little Women, and then in Sugar and Spice, a Playboy Press publication. Large prints were also exhibited by Charles Jourdan on 5th Avenue in New York.

In 1981, however, Brooke Shields wanted to prevent further use of these pictures and tried unsuccessfully to buy back the negatives. A legal battle then began between Shields and Gross with Gross being sued for a million dollars. Brooke Shields claimed that her mother had agreed to give up her rights for one publication only and that the photographs caused her embarrassment. In addition, they had been published, and would probably be published again, in revues of dubious morality. Her lawyers immediately obtained a provisional measure forbidding the use of the pictures until the end of the trial. The case was won by Gross with the court considering the contract signed by Brooke Shields’ mother to be valid and binding on her daughter. Brooke Shields appealed and once again obtained a provisional ban on the use of the photographs.

Finally, after a procedure lasting for two years, the appeal court confirmed that Brooke could not invoke her right to annul the contract and that she was legally bound by her mother’s signature. The court once again reaffirmed Gross’s right to freely exploit the use of the pictures other than in a pornographic context. After the failure of their arguments concerning the validity of the contract, Brooke’s lawyers decided on a new strategy, attacking Gross for violation of Brooke Shields’ privacy. The actress claimed that the publication of the images caused her distress and embarrassment. Brooke Shields’ acting career, however, weakened the credibility of this argument since it had clearly been built by projecting an explicitly sexual image of herself. Whatever the case, the court considered that “these photographs are not sexually suggestive, provocative or pornographic, nor do they imply sexual promiscuity. They are pictures of a prepubescent girl posing innocently in her bath”. The court rejected all Brooke Shields’ claims and decided in Gross’s favour. The trial however, had ruined him financially and had tarnished his reputation. In addition, a change in attitudes towards the “politically correct” had sullied the photographs.

The story, nevertheless, had an unexpected development. In 1992, a contemporary artist called Richard Prince approached Gross about buying the rights to use and reproduce the image of Brooke Shields. In his artistic work, Prince appropriates pictures by rephotographing them, recontextualizing them and giving them a title. The picture of Brooke Shields, for example, is entitled Spiritual America. Gross was willing to retrocede his rights to Prince for a series of ten prints. Prince became a star of the contemporary art scene and his picture was sold at Christies in 1999 for $151,000.