Art or Child Pornography?: The Brooke Shields Portrait That Shook Britain
As fugitive filmmaker Roman Polanski awaits extradition to an increasingly unsympathetic U.S., yet another front has opened in the raging Culture War that has subsumed continents and turned megaproducing brother against megaproducing brother. This one blitzed London with a bombshell image of a 10-year-old Brooke Shields hanging from gallery walls -- covered in baby oil, standing nude in a bathtub, with a face full of makeup.
The portrait in question is a work by Richard Prince, a multimedia appropriation artist who is the subject of a retrospective at the Tate Gallery called Pop Life: Art In A Material World. Titled Spiritual America, it's actually a photograph of a photograph taken by another photographer -- Garry Gross, who was commissioned in 1975 by Shields' mother, blinded by ugly stagemom ambition. Shields attempted to purchase back the negatives in 1981, unsuccessfully, and the ensuing news coverage was what drew Prince to the photo and inspired him to create the work.
The Tate consulted lawyers before including what they call a work of "challenging imagery," and set it aside in a separate room behind closed doors, with a posted warning to unsuspecting visitors. Angry protests from child welfare groups followed, which led to a police investigation. Today, the museum announced the doors to that room would stay locked. A police statement read, "The officers have specialist experience in this field and are keen to work with gallery management to ensure that they do not inadvertently break the law or cause any offence to their visitors."
Art or child pornography? You decide: The portrait is here.
· Tate museum pulls young Brooke Shields nude image [Reuters]
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
Child Pornography by definition is anything which sexualizes a child. Seems that photo does a fair enough job of that. Why else would a 10 year old be standing in a jacuzzi wearing full harlot make-up while rubbed in baby oil?
It helps to imagine that Polanski's victim was only 3 YEARS! older than Brooke in the photo when the incident happened and yet defenders use the claim that the girl may have lied about her age!
Jeezus. This week has been weird in so many ways!
But I was reading about the correspondence theory of truth, which basically says that words are true if they accurately describe a tangible thing in the world. So, therefore, this is both art and child porn, because it is both art and child porn. Right?
wow, that is so fucked up. does brooke still speak to her mother because i would disown her after something like this.
child pornography. It's wrong in so many levels.
That's definitely kiddie porn.
Looks like a not particularly good Photoshop mash-up to me -- her head's too big for the body, and looks screwed on wrong.
In any case, I'm all for artists making their art. But if I were Brooke's guardian, I'd tell the photog to find himself another girl.
If I weren't the prospective model's guardian, and if no laws were being violated, I'd think it was none of my business.
It's the make-up that makes it child porn to me. If you're showing the natural beauty of a child, why use make-up? If she had no make-up and was in a nonsexual setting like a meadow or something, I as an open-minded person wouldn't see it as porn, even if there weren't shadows obscuring the crotch region. The healthy human body is something to marvel at in its naked form, just like any other animal's body that we watch on nature channels and admire. But this image, although you can't really see anything, is just way too sexual.
I could take an askance, black & white photo of a fresh morning dump and call that "challenging imagery" as well.
Apparently pedophilia is the new "it" thing for modern art. What ever happened to the stunning nudes of adult women in classical art? I guess they are to curvy for the modern set that wants that genuine child rape look.
Wow... Looks like the religious right is here. Way to go! Next you'll be saying that God will make us eat our children! (Saw that on a religious protestor's sign) Its definately art. No doubt about it.
You would think a movie where a 12 year old is numerous times nude. Where a child is in bed with and adult man and the story would have us believe they had sex is not Child pornography? I guess you think Blue Lagoon is art too? I think Brooke's Mother should have gone to Prison.
So correct me if I am wrong, you contend that Pretty Baby with it's sexualized portrayal of a 12 year old is not child pornography? Then please tell me how does this flim not violate the law?
Glanced at it and it's pretty disturbing. The whole get up with her dolled up like an adult and posing as such in a provocative manner is just ugh, gross.
This looks fake to me. That's Brooke's head stuck on a boy's body surely? If that's pubic hair, why no trace of breast tissue? And the head looks too big. If it is real, Brooke's Mom is one sick individual, as are the people who took the photo. Poor Brooke.
This flim was far to cheap and remember it was made in 1977. No photoshop, no internet and no CGI. So how did they fake it? Sorry it is real and Brooke's Mother should have gone to Prison.
Moreover, is it a slow news day? Wtf Movieline?! This is TMZ type stuff.
That cant be fake.....It must have been taken during the filming of Brooke Shields "Pretty Baby" There's nothing to see in a 10 year old naked girl but having a photo taken with make up like that is wrong. That's promoting a childs body in a sexual way and that shouldnt be called art.
Brooke is pretty close to her mom. A few mistakes doesn't outweigh all the good her mom has done for her. Brooke is doing good. The public doesnt know shit about these peoples lives except the garbage they read about them in the media. Dont go judging ppl.
Is that public hair?
This is what 35, 36 years old? The movie Pretty Baby is 33 years old. There are places it's banned and it's been edited for DVD releases to remove most of the nudity. Obviously there is a reason for that.
It's nasty, plain and simple-If my own mother had done that to me I would disown her and ANYONEwho had known about it! I have a 9 year old daughter and if anyone had done that to her, they'd be sorry. For one thing I don't think a 10 year old should be allowed to wear ANY makeup, but to put obviously adult stuff on a child? And the BABY OIL? That's definitely sexy! I never even used it on my kids when they were babies, because it isn't safe for them. And that's for health reasons. Where oh where have simple morals gone? Where can they be? Look at the world we live in. 🙁
Wow that is pretty disturbing... I can see why they'd want to show it in the gallery, because of the different layers of meaning it has gained from everything that happened after, and also the backstory to how it came to be created.
God shall not be mocked. Verily I say unto you, burn the witch!