Tate Modern removes naked Brooke Shields picture after police visit

[Park Life 71]

Tate Modern removes naked Brooke Shields picture after police visit

Gallery takes down photo of actor when she was 10, made-up and nude, after advice from Met's obscene publications squad.

 

A display due to go on show to the public at Tate Modern tomorrow has been withdrawn after a warning from Scotland Yard that the naked image of actor Brooke Shields aged 10 and heavily made up could break obscenity laws.

 

The work, by American artist Richard Prince and entitled Spiritual America, was due to be part of the London gallery's new Pop Life exhibition . It has been removed from display after a visit to Tate Modern by officers from the obscene publications unit of the Metropolitan police."

 

 

Well?

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/200...ked-tate-modern

Edited October 6, 2009 by Park Life

[JawD 99]

Assuming its just the image there, I dont see it as a big deal. If the image is expanded then yes of course its a big deal. That said, if the exhibition makes a big thing of her only being 10 in that image even as it is, then I also think its bordering on being wrong.

[AgentAxeman 199]

hard to comment when you have'nt seen the full pic, but full frontal nude, full make up and pouting lips?? seems a bit kiddie fiddler to me.

[trophyshy 7099]

Very young girls in make up is just plain wrong. If she is naked too then it's just plain stupid. Should never had made it into the gallery, pretentious arty wankers courting controversy.

[NJS 4446]

It's a bit iffy as Shields has always tried to prevent its publication.

 

However this is nowhere near as disturbing in my opinion as those toddler beauty pageants they have in the US,

[Guest alex]

What sort of parent allows this? Probably the sort who's so desperate for their daughter to be famous that they put them in those hideous pre-pubescent beauty pageants. They're dodgy as fuck too.

[The Fish 11080]

I was just reading a piece in the Metro saying there were no "shocking" pieces in this years Booker-prize competition and to be honest I'm glad shit like this hasn't got in. I'm all for challenging and innovative art, but this really is sensational and offensive, for no good reason.

[Guest alex]

I was just reading a piece in the Metro saying there were no "shocking" pieces in this years Booker-prize competition and to be honest I'm glad shit like this hasn't got in. I'm all for challenging and innovative art, but this really is sensational and offensive, for no good reason.

Turner Prize you mean? There's normally quite a bit of shocking stuff in the running for the Booker Prize

[The Fish 11080]

I was just reading a piece in the Metro saying there were no "shocking" pieces in this years Booker-prize competition and to be honest I'm glad shit like this hasn't got in. I'm all for challenging and innovative art, but this really is sensational and offensive, for no good reason.

Turner Prize you mean? There's normally quite a bit of shocking stuff in the running for the Booker Prize

 

 

I do, in fact, mean the Turner Prize. In my defence, I'm quite quite stupid.

[Park Life 71]

Wonder if the hoo hah would be the same if it was a 10yr old boy?

[The Fish 11080]

I'd imagine it would be worse.

[AgentAxeman 199]

I'd imagine it would be worse.

 

 

especially if he was in full make up!!

[Billy Castell 0]

It's just a sad attention seeking stunt from some 'artist' who wants to make a name for themselves and get on that tawdry waggon where art is simply a commodity to be bought and sold like gold or steel. It isn't what is on the canvas that is appreciated amongst 'art lovers', it is the status and more importantly the amount of cash associated with owning it that is. It isn't enough that something can look good, it has to either be sensationalist (e.g. Tracy Emin's latest collection of skiddy knickers) or able to fetch a shitload of cash at auction (e.g. Damien Hirst's diamond encrusted skull).

 

Some of these supposed artists must have been really annoying at school.

[Brock Manson 0]

It's hardly innovative and new of the artist; he's just trying to get publicity. The Scorpions have done it already anyway.

[trophyshy 7099]

Just seen this picture

 

Nay link ffs?

[trophyshy 7099]

I was kidding like CT.

[Guest alex]

[Cid_MCDP 0]

Just seen this picture and would expect the law round if i tried to get a similar one developed at Boots.

 

Cant understand parents allowing it or modern day galleries putting it on show.

 

Cant understand who else but Kiddie Fiddlers would have a strong interest in this sort of stuff.

 

Shameful.

 

Also came across this legal aspect on the picture itself.

Regarding Richard Prince’s Guggenheim exhibition, Donn Zaretsky points to a past legal issue concerning Richard Prince and the once-young Brooke Shields. In 1975, Brooke’s mom, Terri Shields, gave photographer Garry Gross consent to use Brooke’s now famous image of her as a 10 year old standing in a bathtub. In the 1981 lawsuit, Shields v. Gross , Brooke commenced an action in tort and contract against Gross seeking compensatory and punitive damages and an injunction permanently enjoining Gross from any further use of the photographs. She lost. The issue at hand was weather or not an infant model may disaffirm a prior unrestricted consent executed on her behalf by her parent and maintain an action against her photographer for republication of photographs of her.

 

In effect, the court said that the infant plaintiff is bound by the terms of the valid, unrestricted consents to the use of her photographs executed by her mother, which she may not disaffirm, and that "no prior court approval of the contract with defendant for the infant's services was required….” In conclusion, the Court stated that if the child was in need of more restrictive protection, then “a parent who wishes to limit the publicity and exposure of her child need only limit the use authorized in the consent,” because a defendant's immunity from a claim for invasion of privacy in New York State is no broader than the consent executed to him. So long as the photographic images are not deemed by Courts to be pornographic, parents can pretty much line up their kids in front of flashing Leica’s and enjoy the rewards of publishers and avant-garde artists. Who said parenting was tough?

 

 

Wait, what?

 

So it's legal to take pictures of naked kids as long as the parents consent? That makes no fucking sense whatsoever- and I don't mean from a moral viewpoint or whatever.

 

I'm sure I've read articles in the news where parents (step-parents probably) have been arrested and charged for taking inappropriate or pornographic pictures of their kids here in the States.

 

That sounds like absolute bullshit to me. Not saying it isn't true or accurate, mind...